a V 











.<T \ -tt- a 





y y 






A 





b V 






S 






STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW 

EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

Volume XXXVI] [Number 1 

Whole Number 95 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



CHARLES WILLIAM RAMSDELL, Ph.D. 

Sometime University Fellow in Columbia University 
Instructor in History , Univei'sity of Texas 
Fellow and Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer of the 
Texas State Historical Association 




COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., AGENTS 
London: P. S. King & Son 

I9IO 



FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 



Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D., President. J. W. Burgess, LL.D., Professor 
of Political Science and Constitutional Law. Munroe Smith, LL.D., Professor of 
Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence. F. J. Goodnow, LL.D., Professor 
of Administrative Law and Municipal Science. E. R. A. Seligman, LL.D., Profes- 
sor of Political Economy and Finance. H. L. Osgood, Ph.D., Professor of History. 
Wm. A. Dunning, LL.D., Professor of History and Political Philosophy. J. B. Moore, 
LL.D., Professor of International Law. P. H. Giddings, LL.D., Professor 
of Sociology. J. B. Clark, LL.D., Professor of Political Economy. J. H. 
Robinson, Ph.D., Professor of History. W. M. Sloane,L.H.D., Professor of History. 
H. R. Seager, Ph.D., Professor of Political Economy. H. L. Moore, Ph.D., 
Professor of Political Economy. W. R. Shepherd, Ph.D., Professor of History. 
J. T. Shotwell, Ph.D., Professor of History. G. W. Botsford, Ph.D., Adjunct 
Professor of History. V. G. Simkhovitch, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Economic 
History. E. T. Devine, LL.D., Professor of Social Economy. Henry Johnson, 
Ph.D., Professor of History. S. McC. Lindsay, LL.D., Professor of Social Legis- 
lation. C. A. Beard, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Politics. H. R. Mussey, 
Assistant Professor of Economics. G. J. Bayles, Ph.D., Associate in Ecclesiology. 
E. E. Agger, Ph.D., Lecturer in Economics. C. H. Hayes, Ph.D., Lecturer in History. 
E. M. Sait, A.M., Lecturer in Politics. 

SCHEME OF INSTRUCTION 

GROUP I. HISTORY AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. 

Subject A. Ancient and Oriental History, eleven courses. Subject B. Mediae- 
val History, twelve courses. Subject C. Modern European History, fifteen courses. 
SubjectD. American History, seventeen courses. Subject E. Political Philosophy, 
three courses. Courses in church history given at the Union Seminary are open to 
the students of the School of Political Science. 

GROUP II. PUBLIC LAW AND COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE. 

Subject A. Constitutional Law, seven courses. Subject B. International Law, 
four courses. Subject C. Administrative Law, seven courses. Subject D. Roman 
Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, seven courses. Courses in Law given in the 
Columbia Law School are open to the students of the School of Political Science. 

GROUP III. ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 

Subject A. Political Economy and Finance, twenty courses. Subject B. 
Sociology and Statistics, twenty courses. Subject C. Social Economy, seven courses. 
Courses in Economics and Social Economy given in the School of Philanthropy are 
open to students in the School of Political Science. 



Most of the courses consist chiefly of lectures ; a smaller number take the form of 
research under the direction of a professor. In each subject is held at least one seminar 
for the training of candidates for the higher degrees. The degrees of A.M. and 
Ph.D. are given to students who fulfil the requirements prescribed by the University 
Council. (For particulars, see Columbia University Bulletins of Information, Faculty 
of Political Science.) Any person not a candidate for a degree may attend any of 
the courses at any time by payment of a proportional fee. Three or four University 
fellowships of #650 each, the Schiff fellowship of $600, the Curtis fellowship 
of $600, the Garth fellowship in Political Economy of $650, and University 
scholarships of $ 1 50 each are awarded to applicants who give evidence of special 
fitness to pursue advanced studies. Several prizes of from $50 to $250 are awarded. 
The library contains over 440,000 volumes and students have access to other 
great collections in the city. 



1 

RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW 

EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

Volume XXXVI] [Number 1 

Whole Number 95 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



CHARLES WILLIAM RAMSDELL, Ph.D. 

u 

Sometime University Fellow in Columbia University 
Instructor in History, University of Texas 
Fellow and Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer of the 
Texas State Historical Association 




Jfato gork 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., AGENTS 
London: P. S. King & Son 

I9IO 




Copyright, 1910 

BY 

CHARLES WILLIAM RAMSDELL 



©CLA265527 /) 



HO 

My Mother 
AUGUSTA HALLEY RAMSDELL 



PREFACE. 



In narrating the process of reconstruction in any of 
the Southern States, one is naturally drawn into a 
sympathetic attitude toward the people whose social 
and political system was being "reconstructed." But, 
though this is essential to a clear understanding and a 
just portrayal of their problems, their motives, and their 
acts, it is equally necessary to keep in mind the great 
and pressing problems that confronted the national gov- 
ernment and the forces that determined its policies. 
An exposition of the national point of view is, of course, 
precluded here by the character and limitations of the 
subject, but the author has been careful to keep it in a 
corner of his mind, and has often found it a valuable 
corrective. It is hoped that this monograph may pre- 
sent in fairly clear outline a period that has left a deep 
impress upon the later history, the political organization 
and the public mind of Texas. 

Chapters III to VI, with slight modifications, are re- 
printed from the Quarterly of the Texas State Historical 
Association, with the kind permission of the editor, Pro- 
fessor George P. Garrison. The author is especially 
indebted for information and suggestions to Mr. and 
Mrs. W. W. Mills, General Webster Flanagan, Major 
Ira H. Evans and Judge A. W. Terrell, of Austin, Texas; 
to Mr. P. H. Windsor, formerly Librarian of the Uni- 
versity of Texas ; Mr. E. W. Winkler, Librarian of the 
Texas State Library ; Mr. Worthington C. Ford, formerly 
71 7 



8 



PREFACE 



[8 



of the Library of Congress; and to Professor A. C. 
McLaughlin, formerly of the Carnegie Institution. Pro- 
fessor Wm. A. Dunning of Columbia University has 
generously given valuable time to reading the manuscript 
and preparing it for the printer, and has made many 
helpful criticisms and suggestions. Above all the author 
is indebted to his wife for faithful assistance and constant 
encouragement. 

Charles W. Ramsdell. 
Austin, Texas, November 22 1909. 



CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION 



CHAPTER I 

PAGB 

The Secession Movement n 

CHAPTER II 

Texas during the War 21 

CHAPTER III 

The Break-Up. 

1. Decline and Collapse of Confederate Military Power 27 

2. Confusion about Cotton 41 

3. The Negro Question and Labor Conditions 44 



PART I— PRESIDENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION 
CHAPTER IV 

The State under Provisional Government. 

1. Inauguration of the New Regime 55 

2. Loyalty and Disloyalty in the State 62 

3. The Freedmen and the Freedmen's Bureau 70 

4. Relations of the Civil and the Military Authorities 77 

CHAPTER V 

The Constitutional Convention of 1866 85 

CHAPTER VI 

The Restoration of State Government. 

1. The State Elections of 1866 108 

2. Inauguration of the New Government 112 

3. The Eleventh Legislature 114 

4. Problems and Policies of Throckmorton's Administration 126 

9] 9 



IO CONTENTS [lO 

PART II— CONGRESSIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 
CHAPTER VII 

PAGE 

The Undoing of Civil Government. 

1. The Reconstruction Acts 145 

2. The Provisional State Government and the Military Com- 

manders 149 

CHAPTER VIII 

Radical-Military Rule. 

1. Radical Politics and Factions 171 

2. Removal of Sheridan; Reversal of Military Policy by Hancock. 180 

CHAPTER IX 

The Reconstruction Convention of 1868-1869. 

1. First Session 200 

2. Conditions during the Recess; Presidential Election 230 

3. Second Session 242 

CHAPTER X 

The Campaign and Election of 1869. 

1. The Appeal to Congress 261 

2. The Formation of Tickets 267 

3. The Canvass: Radicals Supported by Grant 273 

4. The Election 283 

CHAPTER XI 

The Final Act of Reconstruction 288 



EPILOGUE 
CHAPTER XII 

Radical Rule and its Overthrow. 

1. Policies and Legislation 295 

2. Growth of the Opposition 301 

3. Election of 1873 and the End 313 

Bibliography 319 

Index 321 



INTRODUCTION 



CHAPTER I 
The Secession Movement 

For nearly a decade after the annexation of Texas to 
the Union the questions uppermost in the public mind of 
the state were the local issues growing out of the days of 
the Revolution and the Republic. The heavy state debt, 
the ravaged frontier, and the boundary dispute determined 
the complexion of the party platforms and measures and 
furnished the staple subjects of political discussion. Issues 
of national politics held second place until after the Compro- 
mise of 1850, which settled the boundary question, and at 
the same time provided the means of paying off the state 
debt. The protection of the frontier was to be a problem 
for twenty-five years more. 

Gradually, the questions involved in the great dispute over 
slavery forced themselves upon the immediate attention of 
the people of Texas. Slavery had existed in the state ever 
since the Anglo-Americans had first pushed their way into 
the wilderness; and climatic conditions, agricultural de- 
velopment, and constant immigration from the older south- 
ern states had contributed to the spread of the institution. 
It had rooted itself most firmly in the populous eastern and 
southeastern counties, along the Sabine, Trinity, Brazos, 
and Colorado rivers, where the plantation system was in 
almost exclusive possession of the country and conditions, 
social and economic, were practically identical with those 
11] 11 



12 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [i 2 

existing in the older slave states. In the other regions there 
were fewer slaves and correspondingly more free labor. 
The northern counties contained a large number of settlers 
from Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky who were mostly non- 
slaveholding; the frontier counties, running south through 
the middle of the state, had only a small proportion of slaves, 
and the southwest, with a heavy German population, had 
fewer still. However, in these districts, except, possibly, 
the last — for the Germans were still segregated and un- 
familiar with the institution — the absence of slaves argued 
no hostility to the ownership of human chattels, but simple 
inability to own them. Texas was still a new country, half 
covered with savages, and most of the people were poor 
after the manner of pioneers. Standing between the old 
South and the new West, partaking of the character of both, 
every year of slavery saw her drawn closer to the former; 
and it was inevitable that she should soon find herself in 
the political current setting so strongly toward secession. 

It was the fight over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill that first 
drew Texas into the arena of national politics. Sam 
Houston, then United States Senator, opposed the bill and 
lost much of his popularity thereby; for most of the voters 
and political leaders were state-rights Democrats. Never- 
theless, he was backed by a strong following of independent 
Democrats, old line Whigs, Know-Nothings, and others 
who deprecated agitation of the slavery question as danger- 
ous to the peace and permanence of the Union. The feel- 
ing aroused in the contest over Douglas's bill was inten- 
sified by the quarrels over the Fugitive Slave Law and par- 
ticularly by the outbreak of the border war in Kansas. In 
1857, after an exciting canvass, Houston was defeated for 
the governorship by H. R. Runnels, the Democratic nominee 
and an extreme state-rights man. However, Texas had 
not yet given permanent adhesion to extreme measures 



13] THE SECESSION MOVEMENT ^ 

and the strong conservative element became alarmed at the 
disquieting utterances of some of the radical Democrats, 
who were now advocating the purchase of Cuba, the pro- 
motion of filibustering in Central America, and the re- 
opening of the African slave trade. These propositions 
were never popular in Texas and the Democratic organiza- 
tion never championed them ; but because of a few inconsid- 
erate and hot-headed leaders, the party fell under suspicion, 
and in 1859 conservatism was able to administer a severe 
rebuke by reversing the decision of two years before. Run- 
nels and Lubbock, again the Democratic nominees for the 
chief state offices, were defeated by Houston and Clark, and 
T. N. Waul, Democratic candidate for Congress from the 
western district, was beaten by A. J. Hamilton, who ran 
on the Houston or Independent ticket. In the eastern dis- 
trict, John H. Reagan, Democrat, was successful. 

In October, John Brown made his raid on Harper's 
Ferry. The effect in Texas was to neutralize the results 
of the recent conservative victory, and to place the fire- 
eating section of the Democracy in the ascendancy. When 
the legislature met in November it elected to a vacancy in 
the United States Senate, Louis T. Wigfall, the most rabid 
state-rights man in Texas and one particularly obnoxious 
to Houston. The course of the debates in Congress and 
the speeches of Republican leaders were followed with the 
liveliest apprehensions, and talk of secession as the only 
way to safety from abolitionist aggression became common. 
In the national Democratic convention at Charleston in 
April, i860, the Texas delegates bolted along with those 
from the other southern states, and at Baltimore helped 
nominate the ticket headed by Breckenridge and Lane. The 
situation was far beyond the control of Governor Houston, 
but he made tremendous efforts to still the rising storm. 
Under his leadership the Unionists gathered to the support 



I 4 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [14 

of Bell and Everett, in the vain hope that evasion of the 
great issue would bring peace. When the state-rights ex- 
tremists declared that the election of the " Black Republi- 
can " candidate, Lincoln, would be a declaration of war 
upon the South and would necessitate secession, he de- 
nounced them as traitors, and insisted that secession was an 
unconstitutional and revolutionary measure and could be 
justified only after the federal government should begin ag- 
gressions upon the slave states. Until that time should 
come, he pleaded for caution and for confidence in the gov- 
ernment. 

When the result of the election was positively known, 
the secessionist leaders determined to act. In nearly all 
parts of the state mass-meetings were held and resolutions 
passed, requesting the governor to assemble the legislature 
at once in extra session in order that it might provide for 
a convention to act for the state in the emergency. In most 
cases it was clearly intended by the agitators that the con- 
vention should frame and pass an ordinance of secession; 
but there were some who wished it to go no further at first 
than to appoint delegates to consult with the other slave 
states and seek from the free states a renewal of the con- 
stitutional guarantees of property in slaves. 1 The plan for 
a state convention was checked for a time by the refusal of 
Governor Houston to convoke the legislature; and despite 
a flood of letters, editorials, and resolutions conveying en- 
treaties and threats, he held firm. But the men with whom 
he had to deal were as determined as he, and if they could 
not secure the convention in a regular way they would 
have it in another. On December 3, i860, a group of 
secession leaders at Austin drew up an address " to the 
people of Texas " suggesting that the voters of each repre- 

1 Lubbock, Six Decades in Texas, p. 299. 



l$] THE SECESSION MOVEMENT I5 

sentative district hold an election on January 8th, under 
the order of the chief justice of the district or of one or 
more of the county commissioners or at the call of a com- 
mittee of responsible citizens, vote for twice as many dele- 
gates as the district had representatives in the legislature, 
and make returns of the election to the persons ordering it. 
The delegates were to meet in Austin on January 28, 1861. 1 
Extra-legal and revolutionary as the plan was, it won the 
endorsement of the secessionists everywhere, and by its very 
audacity at once gave them a great advantage over the 
Unionists, whose defensive and negative opposition only 
assured the election of secessionist delegates. 

Outflanked, Houston now called the legislature to meet 
one week before the convention. Soon afterward came the 
news that South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and 
Mississippi were already out of the Union. Not all of the 
counties held elections for the convention — for some dis- 
tricts were too strongly Unionist and others lacked organi- 
zation — but of the delegates elected nearly all were seces- 
sionists. To the objection that it was an assemblage with- 
out authority under the law, the followers of Houston now 
added another — that it represented only a minority of the 
people. When the legislature met the governor sent in a 
message in which he still insisted that the rights of the 
people could best be maintained in the Union, advised 
against hasty action, and intimated that the approaching 
convention was an illegal body. The legislature, however, 
displayed little sympathy with his views, and passed a reso- 
lution recognizing the full authority of the convention to 

1 Comprehensive History of Texas, II, 87 et seq. The address was 
drawn up by O. M. Roberts, George M. Flournoy, W. P. Rogers and 
John S. Ford. Roberts was then associate justice of the supreme 
court and Flournoy was attorney-general. 



i6 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



act for the people, except that its action upon the question 
of secession should be submitted to a vote of the people. 1 

The convention met on January 28th, as arranged. As- 
sociate Justice O. M. Roberts, one of the authors of the 
call, was elected president; a committee was appointed to 
wait upon the governor, and another to draft an ordinance 
of secession. The first found Governor Houston willing 
to concede the authority to secure " an expression of the 
popular will ", because of the action of the legislature, but 
reserved as to other powers. The second committee re- 
ported an ordinance setting forth the reasons for secession, 
namely, that the Federal government had failed to give 
protection to the persons and property of citizens of Texas 
upon the frontier, that the northern states had violated the 
compact between the states and the guarantees of the con- 
stitution, and that the power of the Federal government 
was now sought as a weapon to strike down the interests 
and prosperity of the people of Texas and of her sister slave- 
holding states. It was, therefore, declared that the ordi- 
nance of annexation of 1845 was repealed and annulled; 
that all the powers which had been delegated by Texas to 
the Federal government were revoked and resumed; that 
Texas was of right absolved from all restraints and obliga- 
tions incurred by the Federal compact, and was a separate 
sovereign state; and that all her people were absolved 
from allegiance to the United States. The ordinance was 
to be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection 
on February 23d, and, if carried by a majority of the votes 
cast, should take effect March 2, 1861. A resolution was 
offered to strike out the clause submitting the ordinance to 
a popular vote, but it was voted down. On February 1st, 
in the presence of crowded galleries and hall and a number 



1 Comprehensive History of Texas, II, 296-99. 



17] THE SECESSION MOVEMENT X y 

of invited guests, including the governor, the vote was 
taken and the ordinance passed overwhelmingly, 166 to 7. 
Among those voting " no " was J. W. Throckmorton, of 
Collin, afterwards reconstruction governor. 

The convention did not step here, but took it upon itself 
to transact a vast amount of business not even hinted at in 
the call under which its delegates were elected. Commis- 
sioners from the other seceded states were present urging 
participation in the general government being organized 
at Montgomery, Alabama ; and the convention, anticipating 
the popular adoption of the secession ordinance, elected 
seven delegates to Montgomery. 1 At the same time the 
senators and representatives at Washington were informed 
of the action of the convention. A " committee of public 
safety " of nineteen members was appointed and endowed 
with extensive powers for the defense of the state. Among 
other things it was authorized to remain in session during 
recess, to appoint officers and commissioners to carry out 
its plans, and to keep its operations secret. On February 
5th the convention adjourned until March 2d. 

One of the first projects of the committee of public safety 
was to secure the munitions of war in the possession of the 
United States troops in western Texas. These troops, 
about 2,500 in number, were commanded by Major-General 
D. E. Twiggs, with headquarters at San Antonio. He was 
a Georgian and his sympathies were with the South; and 
it may be said in partial extenuation of his later action, that 
since the middle of December he had been incessantly ap- 
pealing to Washington to know what he should do in case 
Texas seceded, and had received no instruction in reply. 2 

1 The delegates were Senators Louis T. Wigfall and John Hemphill, 
with John H. Reagan, John Gregg, W. S. Oldham, Wm. B. Ochiltree 
and T. N. Waul. 

2 Official Records, War of the Rebellion, Ser. I, vol. i, pp. 579-586. 



i8 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



The committee waited upon Governor Houston and secured 
his approval of their designs, and then opened negotiations 
with Twiggs on February 9th for a surrender of the federal 
stores on March 2d. The negotiations had not been con- 
cluded when on the 15th it was learned that General Twiggs 
had been relieved by Colonel Waite, who was not expected 
to be so compliant. Waite had not yet arrived, however, 
and during that night a large body of state troops under the 
command of Ben McCulloch were rushed into San An- 
tonio and placed at points of vantage. Nothing but sur- 
render of the stores would avoid a conflict now, and terms 
were agreed upon two days later. The troops were allowed 
to retain their arms, the light batteries and sufficient sup- 
plies and equipment for transportation to the coast, where 
they were to embark for the North. Waite arrived next 
day, too late for anything but acquiescence in the terms. 
Twiggs was dismissed from the United States Army for 
" treachery to the flag of his country," and was eulogized 
by resolution of the Texas legislature as a " pure patriot." 1 
His surrender was undoubtedly " a military necessity " at 
the time it occurred, but he might have forestalled it had he 
chosen to act in time, concentrate his forces and retreat, if 
necessary, to New Mexico. 

In the meantime other state troops under Colonel Henry 
McCulloch had received the surrender of the small federal 
posts north of San Antonio; and Colonel John S. Ford, 
with a third party, had done the same for the lower Rio 
Grande valley and the adjacent coast region. 

While these events were taking place, the campaign for 
the ratification of the secession ordinance was closing. The 
authors of the measure were determined that it should not 
be defeated ; the Unionists, unorganized, were making a last 

1 Official Records, Ser. I, vol. i, p. 597 ; Gammel, Laws of Texas, V, 
p. 396. 



19] THE SECESSION MOVEMENT I9 

desperate stand. It was a time of wild excitement; intimi- 
dation and violence too often replaced argument. Charges 
of unfair tactics and of fraud came up from all parts of the 
state against the secessionists, who controlled for the most 
part the machinery of election. There are scores of per- 
sons living to-day who insist that the majority of the people 
were opposed to secession, but that enough were kept from 
the polls by intimidation to determine the result. That is 
hardly probable; but what the result would have been, if 
the election could have been carried through in a quiet 
spirit, cannot be said with absolute certainty. However, 
when the convention came together again on March 2d, 
the returns showed 44,317 for the ordinance to 13,020 
against it. 

Governor Houston regarded the work of the convention 
as finished ; the people, he argued, should be allowed to call 
another convention if other important work was to be done. 
But the members had no intention of giving way, and re- 
garded the vote for secession as a sufficient endorsement 
of their actions to warrant them in doing more. Accord- 
ingly the convention, when reassembled, formally approved 
the provisional constitution of the Confederacy, gave official 
character to the delegates representing the interests of Texas 
at Montgomery, and urged them to secure the admission of 
Texas to the new Union. Houston had acquiesced in se- 
cession, but to this later action he was bitterly opposed, 
regarding it as wholly unauthorized by the people and an 
arrant usurpation of power. He refused to recognize the 
convention any longer. It replied by a declaration that it 
not only had power to pass and submit the ordinance of 
secession, but also possessed and would exercise the right 
to do whatever might be incidental to the same, and 
necessary for the protection of the people and the defense 
of the state. 1 In pursuance of the supreme powers thus 
1 Comprehensive Hist., II, 120-121. 



20 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[20 



asserted, the convention next proceeded so to modify the 
state constitution that it should conform to the constitution 
of the Confederacy — for the Texas delegates had now been 
admitted to the provisional Congress. Among other things 
the convention prescribed an oath of office professing al- 
legiance to the Confederacy, and ordered that all state offi- 
cers must take this oath or vacate their offices. When 
notified, all responded except Governor Houston and his 
secretary of state, E. W. Cave, the former replying orally 
that he did not recognize the existence of the convention. 
It was known that the removal of the governor was immi- 
nent, and an indignation meeting of the numerous Unionists 
in the vicinity of Austin was held at which Houston and 
A. J. Hamilton, who had just returned from Congress, 
made speeches denouncing the course of the convention. 
On the same day, March 16th, the office of governor was 
declared vacant and the lieutenant-governor, Edward Clark, 
was instructed to take up its duties. Upon retiring, the 
venerable governor issued, as an address to the people, a 
spirited but dignified protest against the " usurpations " of 
the convention. He made no further resistance and soon 
retired from public life, to die two years later. 1 An effort 
of the Unionists in the legislature to repudiate the depo- 
sition of the governor was defeated, and the members 
themselves were required to take the oath. On March 23d 
the Constitution of the Confederacy was formally ratified 
and its authority extended over Texas. Three days later 
the convention adjourned sine die, leaving the reorganized 
state government to resume its wonted authority. 

1 It was suspected at this time that Houston and the Unionists were 
planning to collect a force to sustain him as governor and hold Texas 
neutral. An agent was sent to Austin by Lincoln to confer with 
Houston, but the latter refused to countenance the plan or to receive 
assistance from the United States. — Official Records, Ser. I, vol. i, 
550-55L 



CHAPTER II 



Texas during the War 

Texas was formally admitted to the Confederacy by an 
act of Congress approved March i, 1861. On the previous 
day, Jefferson Davis, in accordance with another act, had 
assumed control over all military operations in the various 
states having reference to other states or foreign powers; 
but not until Houston was removed was this authority fully 
recognized in Texas. When the attack on Fort Sumter and 
Lincoln's call for volunteers dissipated the hope that war 
could be avoided, Texas was called upon for 3000 troops 
and then for 5000 more. In addition to those raised 
through the agency of the state, a number of battalions and 
regiments were raised by individuals and mustered directly 
into the Confederate service. During the following winter 
the legislature provided for a mounted regiment of rangers 
for frontier service, and, to expedite and regulate enlistment 
in the Confederate army, divided the state into thirty-three 
" brigade districts " in each of which all able-bodied men 
between the ages of eighteen and fifty years, with necessary 
exceptions, were to be enrolled in companies subject to the 
call of the Confederate government. The Confederate 
" conscript law " of April 16, 1862, brought into active ser- 
vice immediately all men between the ages of eighteen and 
thirty-five, for three years or for the war. This age limit 
was extended again and again until the country was almost 
drained of its men. It is estimated that Texas furnished 
21] 21 



22 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ 22 

between 50,000 and 65,000 men for military service, 1 of 
whom about one-fourth were east of the Mississippi. The 
rest were scattered about in the Trans-Mississippi Depart- 
ment, in Louisiana, Arkansas, on the frontiers and coast 
of Texas, in garrisons or on special detail in the interior. 

When once the war was fairly on, most of those who had 
opposed the measures which brought it about, yielded and 
gave their support to the state and the new government. 
In every Texas regiment, from Virginia to the Rio Grande, 
were to be found recent Unionists who gave to the Con- 
federacy an allegiance as sincere and as strenuous as did 
the original secessionists. There were others who never 
parted with their Unionist belief but went into the army 
from necessity; for often it was safer to stand in line of 
battle than to remain at home as a known opponent of the 
Southern cause. Some escaped active service by securing 
appointment upon special details near home, some by elec- 
tion or appointment to political office. All of these things, 
however, required an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy, 
and there were many whose strength of conviction would 
not permit this. To avoid it some left the state immediately 
and made their way North ; others lingered with their fami- 
lies, hiding at times in the woods and hills to escape con- 
script officers, provost-marshals, vigilance committees, and 
mobs, until compelled or enabled to slip out of the country 
and get into the Union lines for safety. This was held to 
be desertion to the enemy, and capture meant ignominious 
death. Many were murdered by mobs for the expression 
of unpopular opinions, and many more because of private 
grudges screened by charges of treasonable designs. The 

1 The lower figures are probably more nearly correct. The bewild- 
ering merging of battalions into regiments and the reduction of the 
latter to battalions again make any estimate uncertain. 



23] TEXAS DURING THE WAR 2 3 

story is a painful one, but it could hardly have been other- 
wise. When a desperate war is being waged, when the en- 
emy is thundering at the gates, perfect tolerance can hardly 
be expected for expressions of sympathy with the invader. 
The North never suffered as did the fire-encircled South, 
but the experiences of the northern " copperhead " were 
often as harsh as those of the southern loyalist. In Texas 
this inevitable tendency to lawlessness was accelerated by 
the presence of so many turbulent characters in her frontier 
population. 1 

In general, Texas was fairly prosperous during the war 
— especially during the first two or three years. She lay 
well outside the circle of conflict; no hostile armies laid 
waste her towns and fields nor withdrew her slaves from the 
plantations. Good crops were raised every year, although 
nearly all the able-bodied men were away in the army. 
Slaves were in fact more plentiful than ever before, for 
great numbers of them had been run in from Louisiana, 
Arkansas, and states even further east, for safe-keeping. 
Texas was, therefore, in a position to perform a unique 
service to the rest of the Confederacy in furnishing supplies 
not only from her own fields and ranches but also, by way 
of Mexico, from Europe. The early blockade of all or 
nearly all southern ports and the uncertain dependence upon 
blockade runners rendered the Mexican trade of particular 
importance. It was, however, beset with many difficulties. 
A distance of nearly four hundred miles, through a region 
part desert, without railroads, infested with brigands, had 
to be traversed by wagon trains heavily guarded. Nor 
was this all. Hard cash was necessary for purchasing the 
goods needed, as the commercial world looked askance at 

1 For an account of the work of vigilance committees in the region 
about San Antonio, see Williams, With the Border Ruffians. 



24 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [24 

Confederate notes and bonds. In lieu of gold and silver, 
recourse was had to domestic articles — cotton, wool, and 
hides. Cotton, especially, was in demand abroad and found 
ready sale. The problem now was for the government to 
get the cotton and secure its transportation to some point of 
exchange. 

The state first undertook the task, and in April, 1862, 
a military board was created to purchase arms and ammu- 
nition for the state. After disposing of a quantity of United 
States indemnity bonds, obtained in 1850, the board began 
purchasing cotton with eight-per-cent state bonds, and dur- 
ing the first year transported some five thousand bales to 
the Rio Grande. For several reasons, however, the board 
was never able to accomplish all that it had designed. 
Planters were loath to exchange their cotton for doubtful 
state bonds so long as there was a chance to get gold for it, 
and often refused to deliver cotton actually contracted for. 
Failure to get the cotton promptly to the Rio Grande dam- 
aged the board's credit with the importers of foreign wares. 
The peculation of officials engaged in the work created 
confusion; and rivalry with the cotton bureau that was 
established by the Confederate authorities in 1863, weak- 
ened the efforts of both the state and the general govern- 
ment. It is needless to go into the story of mismanagement, 
misfortune and peculation that characterized so much of 
this business; for a great deal of real benefit was derived 
from it notwithstanding. Important also is the fact that a 
great deal of private cotton found its way into Mexico and 
across the Gulf to Cuba and Europe, and that a slender but 
steady stream of hard cash flowed back into Texas; and 
although the greater part of the money went into the 
pockets of favored speculators, " exempts ", " details " and 
officers, the state at large profited somewhat. Texas came 
out of the war with plenty of food for her people and more 
hard money than all the rest of the South together. 



25] TEXAS DURING THE WAR 2 $ 

The military operations in the state are worthy of but 
slight notice. They were never extensive and were confined 
to the border, and they therefore left no such reconstruc- 
tion problems in their train as existed in the other states. 
In the summer of 1861 an expedition under General H. H. 
Sibley for the capture and occupation of New Mexico 
reached Santa Fe, but was driven back the following spring. 
In August, 1862, a band of some seventy German Unionist 
refugees were overtaken on the Nueces River by a superior 
force of " partisan rangers " and almost annihilated. Some 
prisoners were taken and afterwards killed — a dastardly 
outrage which the Germans of western Texas never for- 
gave. A few minor engagements along the coast resulted 
in the better fortification of the ports. In October, 1862, 
a Federal squadron forced the evacuation of Galveston, 
which was occupied by United States troops just before 
Christmas. On New Year's eve the Confederate General 
Magruder, who had just assumed command of the District 
of Texas, moved troops over to the island and in the early 
morning light attacked the forces stationed there, while 
improvised gun-boats fortified with cotton bales assailed the 
fleet in the harbor. The attack resulted in a complete vic- 
tory; the city was taken and the Federal ships captured, 
driven off, or destroyed. Galveston remained in the hands 
of the Confederates during the rest of the war and was 
valuable as a port of entry, though United States war- 
ships patrolled the Gulf. In September, 1863, an attempt 
was made by General Banks to invade Texas by way of 
Sabine Pass, Beaumont, and Houston; but the invading 
force with its convoy of gun-boats came to grief in its 
attack on the small fort at the Pass and got no further. 
The next attempt was by way of the Rio Grande. Browns- 
ville was taken in November, 1863, an d forces were pushed 
along the coast and up the river to cut off communication 



26 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [26 

with Mexico; for there was some fear of French interven- 
tion from that quarter. The next spring all these garri- 
sons except those at Matagorda and Brownsville were with- 
drawn and Banks made a third attempt by way of the Red 
River and Shreveport. He was defeated at Mansfield be- 
fore reaching the Texas line. In March, 1864, Colonel E. 
J. Davis, a Unionist refugee from Texas, with a force of 
some two hundred Texan Unionists, was defeated in an 
expedition against Laredo. In return, a force of Texans 
under Colonel John S. Ford advanced against and recap- 
tured Brownsville, July 30, 1864. Near here, at Palmito 
Ranch, occurred the last battle of the war, May 13, 1865, 
in which Ford defeated a body of eight hundred Federals. 
From their prisoners the victors learned that their govern- 
ment had fallen and that the war was over. 



CHAPTER III 



The Break-Up. 

i. Decline and Collapse of Confederate Military Power. 

When General Lee surrendered, in early April, 1865, 
that part of the Confederacy east of the Mississippi was 
already overwhelmed and exhausted. In the Trans-Miss- 
issippi Department, however, a large area, comprising west- 
ern Louisiana, parts of Arkansas and the whole of Texas, 
was still untouched by invasion. The Federal forces having 
been kept at bay here throughout the war, it seemed prob- 
able that a severe struggle would be necessary for the reduc- 
tion of the Confederates in this region ; yet, within six 
weeks from the surrender at Appomattox the Trans-Miss- 
issippi Department presented a scene of universal disorder 
and confusion nothing short of anarchy — and that, too, 
without the advance of a single Federal soldier. In reality 
the defences of this department, and particularly of Texas, 
formed simply a thin shell incapable of sustaining any 
heavy or prolonged attack. 

The country had long been showing unmistakable signs 
of exhaustion. The cotton trade, upon which so much de- 
pended, had gradually succumbed under the weight which 
official mismanagement and corruption superadded to its 
inherent difficulties. Repeated issues of Confederate paper 
money had driven out all other currency and the paper itself 
steadily depreciated. By March, 1865, even this was cut 
off, as there was no ready or safe communication with the 
27] 27 



28 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[28 



Confederate seat of government. Taxes were extremely 
heavy; the tithe of the cotton taken by the Confederacy 
was increased to a fifth, then to a half ; everything was 
levied upon. Military authorities impressed beef, corn and 
other supplies for the army, and having no money where- 
with to pay, gave worthless certificates of indebtedness 
which the government would not even receive in payment 
of taxes. 1 Driven on by its dire necessities, the government 
adopted desperate and oppressive regulations that de- 
stroyed even its own credit and threatened the extinction 
of what little trade had survived in the state. During the 
spring of 1865 other troubles came. A threatened attack 
by the Federals on Brownsville, the chief cotton depot, had 
diverted the export trade to the less exposed but also less 
profitable and less satisfactory points on the upper Rio 
Grande. At the same time there was a serious drop in the 
price of cotton, a foreshadowing doubtless of the fall of the 
Confederacy. All trade was coming to a standstill. Al- 
though the crops had been good in 1864, they could not be 
marketed. There was plenty to eat, but there was very 
little else to be had. 

The military outlook reflected the gloom of economic con- 
ditions. There were probably about fifty thousand men in 
the Trans-Mississippi Department when Lee surrendered. 
A large part of these were in Louisiana near the department 
headquarters at Shreveport. Several thousand were in Ar- 
kansas. Possibly fifteen thousand men were under arms in 
Texas. Of these last some three thousand were at Gal- 
veston, with others near by at Houston. Small forces were 
stationed at Brownsville, San Antonio, Hempstead, Sabine 
Pass, Marshall, and other points. All of these soldiers 

1 Gen. E. Kirby Smith to Gray, Seddon and Wigfall, Official Records, 
War of Rebellion, Ser. I, vol. xlviii, pt. i, 1381-84. 



29] THE BREAK-UP 2 9 

had for months been serving practically without pay, for 
they were paid in paper. They were poorly clad, and often 
had to furnish their own clothing and equipment. There 
was much discontent in the army because of alleged mis- 
management and peculation in the commissary and supply 
departments. Swarms of deserters made their way to 
Matamoras in Mexico, or took refuge with a body of Fed- 
erals on the island of Santiago de Brazos. The conscript 
laws had become more and more severe, and young boys 
and old men were forced into the ranks. The discontent 
increased. Certain regiments were wholly unmanageable. 1 

The people were plainly growing weary of the burdens 
of a hopeless war. Sherman's march through Georgia, 
despite the ingenious explanations of the press, had shown 
the utter impossibility of ultimate success. Even General 
E. Kirby Smith, commander of the department, sought 
timely provision for the future as early as February ist, 
when he offered his military services to Maximilian in case 
of the overthrow of the Confederacy. 2 Nevertheless, when 
the news of Lee's surrender reached Texas in the latter part 
of April, it produced consternation. It was discredited 
and denied at first as a " Yankee rumor " ; then, when too 
fully confirmed, hope was held out still that most of the 
army had escaped and were with Johnston. Anxiously tid- 
ings were awaited from this general. There was a wide- 
spread belief that he was about to cross the Mississippi and 
join with Kirby Smith; then came the crushing news of his 
surrender to Sherman. The next attack of the Federals 
would be upon Texas. All was gloom and anxiety. 

A desperate effort was made to preserve a bold front. 
Governor Murrah and Generals Smith and Magruder made 

1 Magruder to Boggs, Official Records, vol. cit., pt. ii, 1271. 

2 Ibid., pt. ii, I359- 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



speeches and issued stirring addresses urging the soldiers 
to fight to the last. Patriotic editors demonstrated con- 
clusively that it would be impossible for the Federals to in- 
vade Texas and maintain themselves in its vast stretches 
without a year's preparation ; and that meanwhile help would 
be secured from abroad, or at least better terms would be 
offered than had been granted to Lee and Johnston. Every- 
where public meetings were held and citizens pledged them- 
selves never to submit to Northern tyranny or to abandon 
the cause of the South. Meetings of a similar nature were 
held in the army in the effort to revive the waning devotion 
of the discontented and the disheartened. Most of these 
army meetings were meagerly attended; many of the men 
held aloof, while others attended only in order to pass re- 
solutions expressing contempt for the war meetings of " ex- 
empts and details," and bitter hatred of the cotton specu- 
lators, upon whom was placed the blame for the failure of 
the war. 1 But meetings and speeches and valiant " last 
ditch " resolutions were all in vain. The majority of the 
soldiers were convinced that the war was over, and the ac- 
cumulated discontent of the past month expressed itself in 
desertion. Magruder declared as early as April 29th that 
the men at Galveston were deserting by tens and twenties 
every night. 2 

In the meantime by order of Grant, General Pope had 
despatched Colonel Sprague to Shreveport to demand of 
Kirby Smith the surrender of the Trans-Mississippi Depart- 
ment upon the same terms that were granted to Lee. Smith 
immediately, May 9th, rejected these, hoping to obtain more 
liberal terms. With a view to determining upon methods 

1 The Tri-Weekly Telegraph (Houston), April 26, and throughout 
May, 1865; The Patriot (La Grange), May 6 and 20, 1865. 

2 Magruder to Boggs, Official Records, vol. cit., pt. ii, 1291. 



31 ] THE BREAK-UP 3 ! 

and means of resistance or suitable conditions of surrender, 
he had just before this summoned to meet him in conference 
at Marshall, Governors Allen of Louisiana, Murrah of 
Texas, Reynolds of Missouri, and Flanigan of Arkansas. 
All attended save Murrah, who was ill, but who sent Colonel 
Guy M. Bryan of his staff to represent him. It was deter- 
mined to endeavor to secure more favorable terms, and 
meanwhile to concentrate the forces of the department at 
Houston to resist an expected attack upon Galveston. On 
May 13th, the members of the conference drew up a set of 
terms which they ventured to demand, hoping- to preserve 
the political integrity of their states. In substance these de- 
mands were : that officers and soldiers were to be allowed to 
return directly to their homes; immunity was to be guar- 
anteed against prosecution for offences committed against 
the United States during the war; officers, soldiers and 
citizens were to be able to retain their arms and to leave the 
country if they so desired; the existing state governmnts 
were to be recognized until conventions could be called " to 
settle all questions between the states " ; 1 and after a certain 
date each state should be allowed full military authority 
within its own borders for the preservation of order. This 
conference at Marshall is notable more for what it hoped 
for than for what it accomplished. General Pope had 
already expressly disclaimed any authority to settle political 
questions. 2 Nevertheless, Sprague, who had been detained 
for this purpose, now returned to Pope, bearing these de- 

1 An expression which betrays the strong state-rights feeling 
of the conferees. Any suggestion of the authority of the national 
government over the states was carefully avoided. The chief "ques- 
tion" involved was, of course, the continuance of slavery. 

2 The members of the conference sought to send Governor Allen to 
Washington to urge the acceptance of the proposed terms, but he was 
not permitted to go. 



32 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [32 

mands and a letter from Smith urging reasons for their ac- 
ceptance, which were chiefly the expense of prolonging the 
war and the possibility of " foreign complications." 1 The 
Confederate authorities had already spent much vain effort 
in endeavoring to entangle Maximilian and the French in 
Mexico in an imbroglio with the United States. On May 
2d Smith had made a last attempt to arouse the anxiety of 
the Mexican emperor at the prospect of having the dis- 
tinctly hostile power of the United States re-established on 
the Rio Grande. 2 But such hopes were futile, if indeed 
Smith expected any realization of them. 

Hardly was the Marshall conference concluded and the 
counter-demand for terms despatched to Pope, when Ma- 
gruder sent word from Houston that, on the night of the 
14th of May, four hundred of the troops at Galveston had 
attempted to desert the post with arms in their hands, but 
had been persuaded by Colonel Ashbel Smith, aided by 
a couple of regiments, to remain a while longer. The 
troops were all becoming unmanageable, Magruder further 
reported; they had lost their fighting spirit and could not 
be depended upon. They insisted upon dividing the public 
property before leaving, and he thought it best to comply 
with this demand and to try to send them away to their 
homes as quietly as possible. 3 Almost immediately came 
similar reports from Brownsville. The commander at that 
place announced that at least one-half of his troops had de- 
serted because they thought it was of no use to fight longer, 
and that war meetings and speeches had no effect upon 
them. The troops that remained could not be depended 

1 For the Marshall conference, see Official Records, vol. cit, pt. i, 
186-194. 

2 Smith to Rose, Official Records, vol. cit., pt. ii, 1292. 
* Ibid., 1308. 



33] THE BREAK-UP 33 

upon. 1 Similar accounts came from other points. In many 
places the soldiers had taken possession of the government 
stores, sacked them, carried off what they could, and gone 
home. 

The situation was fast becoming desperate indeed. With- 
out waiting for a response from Pope, Smith immediately 
despatched General Buckner as commissioner to General 
Canby, commanding the United States forces at New Or- 
leans, to take up again the question of terms of surrender. 
He then ordered the evacuation of Galveston and, prepar- 
ing to concentrate the Texas troops at Houston, removed 
his headquarters thither. Before he arrived, about May 
29th, his army had disappeared. The long dreaded 
break-up had come. 

The order for the evacuation of Galveston had been re- 
ceived on Sunday, May 21st, and the movement began the 
next day. The troops perceived that the end had come and 
at once became unmanageable. Ranks were broken and 
almost the whole force swarmed up to Houston. Here a 
few men of De Bray's brigade maintained sufficient disci- 
pline to patrol the streets and preserve order. The city 
authorities were greatly alarmed, for wild rumors had flown 
about that the troops had threatened to sack and burn the 
town, and arrangements were hurriedly made by the mayor 
and citizens to feed them until they could be passed on 
through. Saloons were ordered closed, and the disobedient 
suffered confiscation and destruction of all liquors. For 
some reason the military patrol was suddenly withdrawn 
early in the morning of Tuesday, the 23rd. By 8 o'clock a 
crowd of some two thousand persons had collected before 
the doors of the ordnance building. It was broken into 



1 Smith to Rose, Official Records, vol. cit, pt. ii, 1313. 



34 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[34 



and speedily sacked. The mob then proceeded to the cloth- 
ing bureau. Everything portable was taken. " Blankets, 
made-up clothing, bolts of domestic, buttons, flannels, shoes, 
mosquito bars, gray cloth, sides of leather, mule whips, 
hammers, head stalls, etc., all went into the division and 
were accepted as the new issue." Soldiers, citizens, women, 
negroes and children participated. Some of the soldiers held 
aloof. The crowd was surprisingly quiet, and by 12 o'clock 
all was over. The city authorities seemed paralyzed with 
fear. Later in the day other troops arrived from Galveston 
and, finding the booty gone, angrily threatened to pillage 
the town; but some of the citizens produced part of the 
stores and they were redistributed among the late comers. 
Hastily the mayor made provision for feeding them. Again 
a patrol, partly of soldiers, partly of citizens, was placed over 
the city, and within a few days quiet was thoroughly re- 
stored. 1 

As the disbanded soldiery swept on homeward up through 
the state similar scenes, on a lesser scale, occurred in many 
places. There had been no personal violence at Houston, 
nor was there elsewhere for a time. The soldiers simply 
took possession of Confederate and generally of state prop- 
erty wherever they could find it, alleging that as it had 
originally been collected for their use and as they had pro- 
tected it, they were the nearest heirs of the defunct Con- 
federacy and entitled to this much of the estate. Added to 
this was the irritating conviction that while they had suf- 
fered hardships in the army they had not been adequately 
supported by the mass of those who had been allowed to 
remain at home, and that the resources of the country had 
been speculated upon and wasted by the incompetent or un- 



1 The Tri-Weekly Telegraph, May 24 and 31, 1865. 



35] 



THE BREAK-UP 



35 



principled men into whose hands they had fallen. 1 Nor did 
public opinion often condemn the soldiers. It was greatly 
felt that they had a better right to the Confederate prop- 
erty than any one else. 2 Private property was generally 
respected, but that of the state frequently suffered. At La 
Grange the soldiers of Fayette county held a meeting on 
May 27th and appointed a committee to gather up all gov- 
ernment property in the county and distribute it, looking 
especially to the interest of indigent soldiers or their fami- 
lies. At Huntsville they levied upon penitentiary cloth, 
and for a time a fixed amount was given to each applicant. 
The towns through which they passed, usually in squads, 
furnished them food : " they are masters of the situation," 
explained the Huntsville Item significantly. As they pene- 
trated farther into the interior of the state they became more 
reckless. At La Grange and San Antonio stores were 
openly pillaged. Governor Murrah, in an effort to save the 
state property, issued a proclamation on May 25th to all 
sheriffs and other officers, enjoining them to gather up and 
preserve for future and more equitable distribution all prop- 
erty of the state, and all that of the Confederacy in which 
the state had an interest. It was impossible for this order 
to be very generally carried out. The widespread feeling 
of insecurity and the tendency to disorder were not lessened 
by the presence of bodies of armed men marching towards 
Mexico. General Joe Shelby, with a force estimated var- 
iously at from three thousand to twelve thousand men, was 
on his way to join Maximilian, 3 and he levied upon the 
country as he passed along. Numbers of smaller groups, 
composed largely of late officials who had elected political 

1 The Tri-Weekly Telegraph, June 16, 1865. 

2 The Patriot (La Grange), June 2, 1865. 
8 San Antonio News, May 30, 1865. 



36 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[36 



exile, were bound for the same destination. Governor 
Murrah, on May 27th, issued a call for a special session of 
the legislature in July, and at the same time he proclaimed 
an election for a general convention. The program was 
" to adopt the speediest mode of harmonizing the state 
government with the new condition of affairs, to repeal the 
ordinance of secession, and to enact other legislation neces- 
sary to render Texas a faithful member of the Union." 
Neither the legislature nor the convention ever met. It 
was soon apparent that civil officials would not be recog- 
nized by the Federal government. Helpless in the midst 
of the general disorder, from the highest to the lowest, they 
gradually ceased to attempt to perform their functions. In 
the absence of responsible authorities lawlessness increased. 
Jayhawkers, guerillas and highwaymen appeared. An at- 
tempt was made to capture and rob the penitentiary at 
Huntsville. The state treasury at Austin, left without 
adequate protection, was looted. Bands of robbers and 
jayhawkers infested all the roads between San Antonio and 
the Rio Grande. One stage was said to have been held up 
on an average once every five miles on the road from the 
Rio Grande to San Antonio. Affairs were not much better 
in other sections. Here and there the towns began to or- 
ganize local police or " home guards " and to clear the 
country round about. The newspapers besought the people 
to restore order, as it was the only way by which to obviate 
the establishment of a military government. 1 

Amid this general confusion Kirby Smith arrived in 
Houston about May 29th. On the 30th he issued an address 
to the soldiers in which he declared that it had been his in- 
tention to concentrate the army at Houston, await negotia- 

1 Texas Republican (Marshall), June, 1865; Tri-Weekly Telegraph, 
June 16, 1865. 



37] THE BREAK-UP " ^7 

tions and carry on the struggle until favorable terms could 
be secured. He was now left a commander without an 
army; and, by destroying their organization, he declared, 
the men had thrown away their only chance of securing 
honorable terms. 1 On the same day he addressed a letter 
to Colonel Sprague of General Pope's staff, saying that the 
Trans-Mississippi Department was now open to occupation 
by United States troops, since the Confederate soldiers had 
disbanded. At the same time he declared his intention of 
leaving the country. 2 In the meantime his commissioner to 
New Orleans, General Buckner, had been discussing terms 
of surrender with General Canby. Buckner failed to secure 
the settlement of any political question, since Canby was 
not authorized to treat of those matters. However, a con- 
vention was finally agreed upon, May 26th, providing, in 
substance that the Confederate troops, officers and men, 
were to be paroled and to return home, transportation being 
furnished them where possible. All Confederate property 
was to be turned over to the proper officers of the govern- 
ment of the United States. 3 

Before General Smith arrived at Houston, General Ma- 
gruder and Governor Murrah made an independent effort 
to secure favorable terms of peace for Texas. On May 24th, 
the next day after the sack of the military stores at Houston, 
they appointed Colonel Ashbel Smith and W. P. Ballinger 
as special commissioners to proceed to New Orleans and 
negotiate with General Canby or other proper authority of 
the United States for " the cessation of hostilities between 
the United States and Texas." 

The commissioners arrived at New Orleans on May 29th 

1 Tri-Weekly Telegraph, June 2, 1865. 

2 Official Records, vol. cit., pt. i, 193. 

3 Official Records, vol. cit., pt. ii, 600. 



38 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[38 



and at once solicited a conference. They had seen in the 
newspapers a copy of the convention between Canby and 
Buckner, but hoped " to facilitate the prompt and satis- 
factory restoration of relations between Texas and the 
United States government." Canby granted the confer- 
ence, but distinctly stated that he had no authority to en- 
tertain officially any questions of civil or political character. 
The Texas commissioners frankly stated at the outset the 
actual conditions in Texas — the mutiny and the break-up 
of the army, the seizure and distribution of Confederate 
property, the helplessness of the Confederate officials. The 
people, they said, were heartily tired of the war and ready 
in good faith to return to their allegiance to the govern- 
ment of the United States ; but they were greatly concerned 
with respect to the course to be pursued by the national 
government. The commissioners suggested that, inasmuch 
as the machinery of the civil government of the state was 
still intact and the regular election of state officers under 
the constitution in force in i860 was to fall due the next 
August, that citizens of proven loyalty to the Union be 
allowed to proceed with this election. It would be a good 
policy to recognize the existing state government as a gov- 
ernment de facto in preference to establishing a military 
government. They also pointed out the great evils to be 
feared from the dislocation of the labor of the state. There 
was more cotton in Texas than elsewhere, the crop was 
far along toward maturity, and its production involved the 
interest of all, white and black. It was of the greatest im- 
portance, therefore, that the negroes should be kept on the 
farms, and it was suggested that they be paid wages under 
proper regulations until the whole subject of labor could be 
properly adjusted. 1 

1 Official Records, vol. cit., pt. ii, 648, 675. 



39] THE BREAK-UP 

This conference was necessarily fruitless; for not only 
was Canby without authority to treat upon the subjects 
broached by the Texans, but the United States authorities 
were not likely to yield on a matter of such wide importance 
as even the partial recognition of the " rebel " state govern- 
ment. As the final effort of the state authorities to save 
something from the wreck, it is interesting ; but it seems im- 
possible that, knowing the outcome of the Sherman- Johnston 
agreement, they could have hoped for very much along this 
line. 

On June 2d General Smith went on board a United States 
ship of war at Galveston and formally signed the Canby- 
Buckner convention. The last vestige of Confederate mili- 
tary authority now vanished. For three weeks, however, 
after the surrender, the Federals were not able to send an 
army to take possession of Texas because of the lack of 
transports. 

Meanwhile conditions in the state grew worse. Wild 
rumors were afloat of dire punishments to be inflicted upon 
prominent rebels by the victorious Yankees. Trials for 
treason before military commissions and wholesale confis- 
cation of property were fully expected ; and a sort of panic 
seized upon many of those who had held office under the 
Confederacy. Some declared they could not live under the 
odious rule of their enemies and prepared to emigrate. A 
lively exodus to Mexico ensued. Among those to go were 
the highest officials in the state, Generals Smith and Ma- 
gruder and Governors Clark and Murrah, whose flight was 
bitterly resented by those left behind. 

On May 29th General Sheridan was assigned to the com- 
mand of the Military Division of the Southwest, headquar- 
ters at New Orleans. On June 10th he ordered General 
Gordon Granger to proceed with eighteen hundred men to 



40 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[40 



Galveston. 1 Granger arrived at Galveston on June 19th 
and immediately, in conformity to instructions, assumed 
command of all forces in the state and issued orders de- 
claring that by proclamation of the President all slaves were 
free, that all acts of the governor and the legislature of 
Texas since the ordinance of secession were illegal, that all 
officers and men of the late Confederate army were to be 
paroled, and that all persons " having in their possession 
public property of any description, formerly belonging to 
the late so-called Confederate States or the State of Texas," 
should turn it over to the proper United States officer at 
the nearest of the previously designated stations. 2 As rap- 
idly as possible troops were pushed into the interior of the 
state and posted at the most important points. The military 
was to serve the double purpose of carrying out the pro- 
visions of the surrender and of preserving order until a 
civil government could be established. Most of the troops 
sent to Texas were ordered to the Rio Grande as a sort of 
demonstration against the French in Mexico. The rest 
were wholly inadequate to the efficient policing of the state. 
The posts established were widely separated and extensive 
districts, comprising sometimes several counties, were with- 
out proper surveillance ; and this, too, at a time when society 
was convulsed with sudden and momentous changes and 
lawlessness was everywhere. Even under these conditions 

1 Sheridan says in the dispatch : " There is not a very wholesome 
state of affairs in Texas. The governor and all the soldiers and the 
people generally are disposed to be ugly, and the sooner Galveston 
can be occupied the better" (Official Records, vol. cit., pt. ii, 841). If 
by this it was meant that further resistance to Federal authority was 
contemplated, there seems to be absolutely nothing to support his 
statement. It is true, that there was widespread disorder and lawless- 
ness, but the reference could hardly have been to that. 

2 These were Houston, Galveston, Bonham, San Antonio, Marshall 
and Brownsville. 



41] THE BREAK-UP 4I 

General Sheridan, to provide against local resistance or guer- 
rilla warfare, issued orders, June 30th, that no home guards 
or bands for self-protection should be allowed anywhere in 
the state, on the ground that the military were sufficient 
for all such purposes. By the same order, neighborhoods 
infested by guerrillas were to be held responsible for the 
deeds of the latter — an act indicative of the harsh suspicion 
with which Sheridan always regarded Texas. 

The military authorities now proceeded to confiscate all 
public property that could be found. Such as had belonged 
to the Confederacy or had been used in the prosecution of 
the war became the property of the United States, while 
that belonging solely to the state was held until the proper 
time should arrive for turning it over to the state officials. 
But very little of the public property had been left by the 
soldiers during the riotous days of the " break-up/' and 
the Federals charged that the Confederate officials had not 
observed the terms of the convention and their parole. 
These charges, later reiterated, were undoubtedly unjust; 
for the soldiers had seized most of the property before the 
surrender, and afterwards the officers were unable to restrain 
them. Many commands, in fact, never surrendered at all 
but simply disbanded, as has been shown, even before the 
convention had been agreed upon at New Orleans. 

2. Confusion about Cotton 
If most forms of Confederate property had disappeared 
or evaded Federal confiscation, it was otherwise with cotton. 
When the war closed there was scattered all over the coun- 
try a considerable amount of unmarketed cotton, and as 
soon as hostilities ceased the holders were anxious to get 
it to market without delay in order to obtain the enormous 
prices then being paid for it. General Grant had given 
orders to the commanders in the Southwest not to interfere 



42 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[42 



with its shipment, since it was to the business interests of 
the whole country that it be marketed, but to encourage 
shipment in every way. The military were instructed not 
to institute inquiries as to ownership, but to leave the 
treasury agents to seek out such property as belonged to 
the government. 1 Accordingly, General Granger, upon his 
arrival at Galveston, issued orders to the effect that until 
the arrival of treasury agents all cotton should be turned 
into the quartermaster's department for shipment to New 
Orleans or New York, there to be sold to United States 
purchasing agents. Bills of lading were to be given and 
the owners were to be allowed to accompany the cotton in 
order to effect the sale. 2 This order was in force for little 
more than a month. Treasury agents soon arrived and 
swarmed over the state, seeking out and taking possession 
of everything belonging to the late Confederacy, especially 
cotton. Some of this cotton had actually belonged to the 
Confederate government; some had been set aside to pay 
the tax but had never been delivered; some had been pur- 
chased by the state military board but had never been paid 
for nor delivered; some had gone to pay state taxes and 
was now state property; but a great part had never been 
anything but private property. The greatest possible con- 
fusion arose in regard to the ownership of these various 
classes of cotton. The planter who had produced it was un- 
willing to give up, as Confederate property, cotton that had 
never been paid for, and he still claimed it as his own; nor, 
it must be confessed, was he always active in turning over 

1 Instructions from Grant to Sheridan, Official Records, War of Re- 
bellion, Ser. I, vol. xlviii, pt. ii, 639; Sheridan, General Orders, no. 3, 
ibid., 713; Canby, General Orders, no. 65, ibid., 694. 

2 Granger, General Orders, no. 5, Flake's Bulletin (Galveston), July 
18, 1865. 



43] THE BREAK-UP 43 

that which had actually been paid for (in Confederate 
paper), or which had been raised for the government under 
the terms of an " exemption contract." 1 On the other 
hand, the claims of the treasury agents were sweeping. By - 
order of the general agent for Texas, H. C. Warmoth, all 
personal property that was " actually or constructively in 
the possession of the Confederate States at the time of the 
surrender " was to be seized. 2 In all cases persons who 
wished to ship cotton from any point in Texas were re- 
quired to give satisfactory evidence that the cotton for 
shipment was not " surrendered " cotton. 3 The burden of 
proof, therefore, was on the owner of the cotton._ 

It is obvious that in the confusion involving the subject 
and incident to public affairs generally, it must have been 
no easy task even for the most upright and generous-minded 
agent to keep clear of popular disfavor; but the almost un- 
limited powers delegated to these agents and the constant 
opportunities for fiaud and peculation, with little danger of 
punishment, were in themselves demoralizing. There seems 
to have been a large amount of truth in the charges of 
fraud, robbery and extortion that were made against so 
many of these officials. A petition to President Johnson, 
printed in the Washington Republican (Washington, 
D. C. ) , and signed by merchants, business men and planters 
of Louisiana and Texas, declared that great frauds and 
acts of oppression were continually practiced by treasury 
agents in the matter of cotton ; that the planters west of the 
Mississippi had rarely received anything in payment from 
the Confederate government, and had been informed by 

1 An arrangement whereby a planter had been granted exemption 
from military service upon condition of raising a certain amount of 
cotton, corn or beef for the Confederate government. 

2 Flake's Bulletin, August 30, 1865. 

« F. H. Coupland in Flake's Bulletin, July 31, 1865. 



44 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [44 

agents, military officials and by the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury himself, that cotton not thus paid for or delivered would 
pass like any other cotton. Yet when the cotton had been 
sold to the merchants the treasury agent stepped in and 
took possession of it. Trade was paralyzed, capital made 
timid, and the planters were unable to sell their cotton or 
to hire the labor they needed. 1 A correspondent of the 
New Orleans Picayune, writing from Eastern Texas, gives 
an account of similar difficulties, and declares that every 
agent under whose inspection the cotton passed required 
new proof, which was always inconvenient to obtain. 2 Sev- 
eral cases of fraud came to light at Jefferson, Texas, where 
a treasury agent was later indicted on three distinct charges 
of fraud and swindling. He was released by the military 
authorities. Usually there was no recourse whatever for 
the parties claiming to have been wronged. A favorite de- 
vice of the dishonest treasury agent was to hold back a lot 
of cotton from shipment, under pretense of investigating 
the title, until the owner was willing to give a bribe for its 
release. Sometimes an agent took possession of the cotton 
outright and shipped it on his own account. At other times 
he ordered it shipped to certain points at high rates and re- 
ceived a rebate on the transportation charges. 3 

These troubles involved only the cotton left over from 
the crop of 1864; but so slowly was the crop marketed that 
they did not cease until the beginning of 1866. 

3. The Negro Question and Labor Conditions. 
The turmoil and confusion of the " break-up " and the 
general dread of all that a military occupation might entail 

1 See Flake's Bulletin, September 6, 1865. 
a Ibid., August 30, 1865. 

8 H. Ware to L. D. Evans, Jan. 30, 1866, MS. in Executive Cot' 
respondence, Texas State Archives. 



45] THE BREAK-UP 45 

had at first diverted public attention somewhat from the 
most serious problem that the close of the war had forced 
upon the people of the South. What was to be done with 
the negro ? Was he to be set free, and if so, what measure of 
freedom should he have? How was his labor to be secured 
and so regulated that he should be an economically efficient 
member of society? What was to be his position in this 
society, in the broad domain of civil rights and privileges, 
and in political affairs? The magnitude of the problem 
was not at once appreciated; for the time being public at- 
tention was engaged solely with that part which was of 
most immediate concern, the measure of freedom to be 
accorded to the late slave and the best method of securing 
his labor. The other and more intricate phases of the ques- 
tion were of later development, and the contingencies which 
gave rise to them were at first but dimly apprehended. 

It had been long foreseen that in the event of Federal 
victory a change in the status of the negro would be inevi- 
table. Indeed, the certainty of his emancipation in case of 
the failure of the South had been wielded as a goad to a 
" last ditch " struggle. Yet the Confederacy itself, in final 
desperation, proposed to grant freedom to the slaves as a 
reward for military service The plan came to nothing, for 
the Confederate government was then on the point of col- 
lapse. Then, too, slavery as a* system had already been 
shattered east of the Mississippi by the presence of the Fed- 
eral armies. In Texas, undisturbed by invasions, the insti- 
tution had remained essentially unimpaired; but with the 
break-up of the Confederate armies and the approach of 
the Federals the changed status of the negro was sharply 
emphasized. Long before Granger's proclamation at Gal- 
veston, June 19th, it was generally known that the slaves 
would be freed. In some cases the planters anticipated the 
emancipation by setting their negroes at liberty ; sometimes 



4 6 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[46 



the negroes themselves slipped away from their homes and 
began roaming about the country; but for the most part 
they were kept at home to await Federal action. 

Even at this time, despite the attitude of the national 
authorities, there was considerable belief that slavery as an 
institution was not dead nor yet doomed to die. The 
Texas Republican, the most important weekly of eastern 
Texas, in its issue of June 16th, reviewed the situation, de- 
scribing the demoralization of the negroes, who were laps- 
ing into vagrancy and consequent " filth, disease and crime." 
The negroes would not work when once it was definitely 
known that slavery was to cease, and the crops could neither 
be cultivated nor gathered. The Republican affected to be- 
lieve that 

the ruinous effects of freeing four millions of ignorant and 
helpless blacks would not be confined to the South, but that the 
blight would be communicated to the North, and that the 
time would come when the people of that section would be 
glad to witness a return to a system attended with more philan- 
thropy and happiness to the black race than the one they seem 
determined at present to establish ; for they will find that com- 
pulsory labor affords larger crops and a richer market for 
Yankee manufacturers. 

The masters were advised, therefore, not to turn their slaves 
loose to become demoralized, but to maintain a kind and 
protecting care over them. 

The amendment to the Federal Constitution abolishing slavery 
has not been ratified by three-fourths of the states, nor is it 
likely to be in the ensuing ten years. When the state gov- 
ernments, therefore, are reorganized, it is more than probable 
that slavery will be perpetuated. We can tell better then than 
at present how long it is likely to endure and prepare for the 
change. 



47] THE BREAK-UP 47 

Emancipation, if adopted at all, should be gradual, but 
" there is but little reason to doubt that whether or not 
slavery is perpetuated in name, there will be a return to a 
character of compulsory labor which will make the negro 
useful to society and subordinate to the white race." 

The Houston Telegraph, while conceding that emanci- 
pation was " certain to take place," was of the opinion that 
paid compulsory labor would replace unpaid. Since the 
negro was to be freed by the Federal government solely 
with a view to the safety of the nation, his condition would 
be modified only so far as to insure this, but not so far as 
materially to weaken the agricultural resources of the coun- 
try. Therefore, the negroes would be compelled to work 
under police regulations of a stringent character. Under 
this happy system insolence was to be provided against on 
the one hand and injustice on the other. 

Such seem to have been the hopes of the well informed. 
To men accustomed to dealing with the indolence of the 
negro in slavery, such a thing as successful free negro labor 
was absolutely unthinkable. No other than negro labor 
seemed available on the great bottom farms of the " black 
belt " ; without this labor the planting interests were threat- 
ened with ruin ; and, moreover, to leave the negro the prey 
of the vice and misery certain to result from idleness and 
vagrancy would be criminal. Compulsory negro labor, 
then, seemed the natural and necessary arrangement. It 
was clear enough, too, that slavery as an institution, recog- 
nized by the constitution, could not be abolished by procla- 
mation; and that three-fourths of the states would adopt 
an amendment abolishing slavery, seemed preposterous. 
Thus the life-long beliefs and prejudices of the Southerner 
conspired with the exigencies of the situation to lead him 
into a policy which, certain to be distorted in reports given 
to the North, was in its reaction to force upon him the very 



4 8 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[48 



things he would have feared most — his own disfranchise- 
ment and negro domination. 

Serenely unconscious of negro incapacity and unembar- 
rassed by constitutional guarantees, the Federal authorities 
proceeded to complete the work cut out for them. In his 
emancipation proclamation, issued at Galveston on the 19th 
of June, General Granger declared that in accordance with 
the Presidential proclamation all slaves were free, and that 
this involved an absolute equality of personal and property 
rights between former masters and slaves, the previous bond 
between them giving way to that between employer and 
free laborer. Mindful of the propensities of the freedmen, 
he advised them to remain at home and work for wages, 
and warned them that they would not be allowed to collect 
at military posts, nor would they be supported in idleness 
there or elsewhere. 

As long as the regular army officials were in control, that 
is, until the officials of the Freedmen's Bureau arrived, 
efforts were made to keep the negroes under strict super- 
vision. In the published general orders of post commanders 
at various points during June and July, Granger's procla- 
mation is reflected: the freedmen are repeatedly urged to 
stay at home and go to work for their former masters for 
wages ; they are assured of their freedom and of protection 
from injustice, but are warned against vagrancy under pen- 
alty of being put to hard labor without compensation; and 
in many cases they are not permitted to travel on the public 
thoroughfares without passes from employers. 1 That the 
army officials failed to keep the negroes from vagrancy is 
not surprising. The army posts were too far apart to keep 
all communities under surveillance, and the freedmen them- 

1 General Orders published in Texas Republican, June 23, 1865 ; Trir 
Weekly Telegraph, June 30 and July 5 ; Flake's Bulletin, July 18. 



49] THE BREAK-UP 49 

selves were too ignorant to understand that their new free- 
dom did not mean immunity from work, and that they could 
not be fed and clothed forever by their liberators. 

The military officials made no effort at first to superintend 
the drawing-up of contracts between the freedman and his 
employer, nor to act for the freedmen in stipulating wages 
or other terms. The provost-marshal-general for Texas, 
Lieutenant-Colonel Laughlin, issued a statement that ne- 
groes would be allowed to make contracts with whomsoever 
they wished, and that both parties would be held to the 
terms of the contracts; that unless other regulations should 
be promulgated by the Freedmen's Bureau, the amount and 
kind of consideration for labor should be entirely a matter 
of contract between the employer and the employees. 1 Per- 
haps it would have been better if the rate of wages had been 
fixed in some way, for some contracts were practically nul- 
lified later by the Bureau. It had frequently happened that 
a planter, not feeling able to pay wages — for ready cash was 
scarce, political conditions unsettled, and the outlook un- 
certain — had arranged for his freedman to work tempor- 
arily for food and clothing for himself and family. In 
most cases the freedman was to receive a part of the crop 
in the fall. To the child-like negro, concerned only with 
the immediate present, there was no difference between this 
and his old condition as a slave, and he soon wished to leave. 

From a few sections the reports were favorable — the 
blacks were making contracts and remaining at work; 2 but 
as the summer wore on complaints came from all sides that 
vagrancy, theft, vice and insolence were increasing, and that 
where negroes had made contracts they broke them without 
cause, often leaving their families for their employers to 

1 Tri-Weekly Telegraph, June 28, 1865. 

2 Communication to Tri-Weekly Telegraph, June 28, 1865. 



50 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [50 

feed. 1 The Houston Telegraph thought it necessary to 
warn the people not to allow themselves to develop a feeling 
of hostility and bitterness toward the blacks, who, although 
they were doing very many foolish and vexatious things, 
were " not responsible for their own emancipation. " It 
would have been well if the whites generally could have 
shown this tolerant spirit ; but for his former master to show 
indulgence to the freedman who broke his contract when it 
suited his whim, disobeyed orders just to see how it felt to 
be " free ", and spent most of his time " visiting around " 
when the crops were most in need of work, was more than 
could be confidently expected of the average employer. For 
the time being, fortunately, in the southern part of the state, 
where the demoralization was worst, the crops were already 
well advanced and would need but little attention until fall. 
In the north and northeast, where the Federal troops had 
not yet penetrated, the negroes had shown less inclination 
to wander about or else their former masters had taken 
steps to keep them at home. While in a few instances these 
planters endeavored to keep their negroes in ignorance of 
their freedom, in most cases their efforts took the form of 
combinations to control the labor of their former slaves; 
and usually each planter agreed to hire no negro without 
the consent of his former master. Sometimes freedmen 
who broke contracts and went away were brought back by 
force, and in some cases the planters were guilty of need- 
less cruelty. The army officials generally endeavored to 
hold the negroes to their contracts, but at the same time 
they refused to allow coercion on the part of the employers. 
The discontent grew steadily worse and found expres- 

1 Tri-Weekly Telegraph, July 7, 1865; San Antonio Herald, July 9, 
Jefferson Bulletin, August — , Caddo Gazette, August — ; Texas Repub- 
lican, August 18; Southern Intelligencer, September 29. 



5i] 



THE BREAK-UP 



51 



sion in a more and more insistent demand, chiefly on the 
part of planters and newspapers in the interior, for state 
regulation of black labor. The Telegraph alone pointed 
out that the " North would not likely allow the South thus 
to enjoy the fruit of the contest over slavery after having 
lost the contest," and advocated securing the immigration 
of white labor. 

Conditions in the black belt did not materially improve 
during the summer. There was much uneasiness because 
of persistent rumors that negro troops were to be sent to 
Texas for garrison duty ; for it was generally felt that their 
presence could only aggravate the situation and might make 
it positively dangerous by inciting unruly negroes to law- 
lessness and precipitating racial disturbances. It was also 
known that the Freedmen's Bureau was to be established 
in Texas, and the anxiety and distrust that were felt as to 
its attitude on the labor question did not tend to alleviate 
the growing discontent. Public opinion had become skep- 
tical of the ability of the army officials to provide the usual 
and necessary supply of black labor, and manifested a 
greater eagerness for the speedy restoration of the regular 
state government, which could be expected to deal with the 
problem in a manner agreeable with the customs and social 
ideas of the people. For this reason, largely, the arrival 
of the newly-appointed provisional governor, who was to 
restore civil authority and set in motion again the machinery 
of state government, was greeted with expectant interest. 



PART I 

PRESIDENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION 



CHAPTER IV 



The State under Provisional Government 
i. Inauguration of the New Regime 

On June 17, 1865, soon after it became known that armed 
resistance had ceased in the Trans-Mississippi Department 
and that troops had been despatched to occupy Galveston, 
President Johnson, in pursuance of the policy adopted in 
other southern states, appointed A. J. Hamilton provisional 
governor of Texas. Hamilton was a native of Alabama, 
who had come to Texas in 1847 an d had become prominent 
in politics before the war. He had been attorney-general 
of the state and in 1859 had been elected to Congress. 
Along with Houston and others he had vigorously opposed 
secession and refused adhesion to the Confederacy, but 
had remained in Texas until 1862, when, threatened with 
military arrest, he escaped into Mexico and thence to New 
Orleans. Here he entered the Federal army as a brigadier- 
general of volunteers, and in 1863, when the Brownsville- 
Red-River expedition into Texas was projected, he received 
a commission as military governor of the state from Presi- 
dent Lincoln. He was, therefore, regarded by President 
Johnson as logically the man for provisional governor after 
the surrender of the Confederate authorities. Hamilton was 
a man of energy and ability, of sturdy honesty, aggressive 
and uncompromising, and though prone, when excited, to 
violence and harshness of speech, restrained and governed 
in action by an unfailing generosity and abundant common 
55] . 55 



56 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



sense. He was an orator of extraordinary power and had 
enjoyed the reputation of being one of the ablest lawyers 
in the South. The news of his appointment was received 
with general satisfaction by the Unionists and with some 
misgivings on the part of those who feared he was returning 
for purposes of vengeance. 

The proclamation which contained his appointment de- 
clared it to be the duty of the United States to guarantee to 
each state a republican form of government, and that, inas- 
much as the rebellion had deprived the people of Texas of 
all civil government, it was now the solemn duty of the 
President, imposed by the constitution, to enable the loyal 
people there to organize a state government. The provisional 
governor was directed to prescribe at the earliest practicable 
period rules and regulations for holding a convention of 
delegates for the purpose of altering or amending the con- 
stitution of the state; and he was given authority to exer- 
cise all necessary and proper powers to restore the state to 
its constitutional relations to the United States. The con- 
vention was to represent only that portion of the people who 
were loyal to the United States; and to this end the pro- 
clamation provided that in the election for delegates no 
person should be qualified either as an elector or as a mem- 
ber of the convention unless he had previously taken the 
oath of amnesty, as prescribed in the President's proclama- 
tion of May 29, 1865, and was a voter as prescribed by the 
constitution and laws of the state in force immediately be- 
fore secession. The military commander of the department 
and all other military officers in the service of the United 
States were directed to aid and assist the provisional gov- 
ernor in carrying the proclamation into effect, and were 
enjoined to abstain from hindering or discouraging in any 
way the loyal people from organizing a state government. 
The Secretary of State was directed to put in force all the 



57] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 

laws of the United States, the administration of which be- 
longed to his department and which were applicable to the 
state of Texas; the Secretary of the Treasury was to pro- 
ceed to nominate the officers necessary to put into operation 
the revenue laws, giving preference in each case to loyal 
persons residing within the district ; the Postmaster-General 
was directed to re-establish the postal service; the United 
States district judge for the district of Texas was author- 
ized to hold courts according to the acts of Congress; the 
Attorney-General was directed to instruct the proper offi- 
cers to libel and bring to judgment, confiscation and sale 
such property as had become subject to confiscation; and 
the Secretaries of the Navy and the Interior were directed 
to put in force such laws as related to their respective de- 
partments. 1 

Governor Hamilton arrived in Galveston on July 21st, /?<»■* 
where he was welcomed by a delegation of Unionists. From 
there he sent a cheerful letter to the President, expressing 
the conviction that all classes, except certain of the ex-slave- 
holders, were friends of the government and were rapidly 
availing themselves of the President's amnesty proclama- 
tion. He deprecated a tendency on the part of the planters 
to keep the negro in some sort of bondage and to talk of 
" gradual emancipation," even after having subscribed to 
emancipation in their oath of amnesty. 2 On the 25th he 
issued from Galveston a proclamation " to the people of the 
state of Texas," reciting the manner and purpose of his 
appointment and indicating in a general way the course he 
expected to take with respect to the election of a convention 
and the appointment of civil officers. Suitable persons were 
to be appointed in each county to administer the oath of 

1 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. vi, p. 321. 

2 MS. in Johnson Papers. 



58 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[58 



amnesty 1 and register the loyal voters. Civil officers for 
the state, districts and counties were to be appointed pro- 
visionally. The general laws and statutes in force in the 
state immediately prior to the ordinance of secession, ex- 
cept in so far as they had been modified by the emancipa- 
tion of the slaves and by acts of Congress for the suppres- 
sion of the rebellion, were declared in force for the direction 
of courts and civil officers; all pretended state laws passed 
since secession were inoperative, null, and void. There was 
to be " amnesty for the past, security for the future," but 
the people must accept the fact that slavery was dead and 
that the negroes would be protected in their freedom by the 
United States. Finally, loyal men from every part were 
invited to visit the capital and confer with the governor 
upon the condition of the state. 

When the provisional governor arrived in Austin a few 
days later, he was received with enthusiastic ceremony by 
the Unionists, of whom there were a large number in the 
city. He found all affairs of state in confusion. There 
were no officials of a civil character, the treasury had been 

1 General pardon and amnesty had been proclaimed by President 
Johnson for all who had taken arms against the United States, except 
certain specified classes, provided they would first subscribe to the 

following oath: "I , do solemnly swear (or affirm), in the 

presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, 
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the union 
of the states thereunder, and that I will in like manner abide by and 
faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made 
during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of 
slaves. So help me God." The classes, fourteen in number, excepted 
from the privileges of the general amnesty were, chiefly, high officials 
under the Confederacy, or those who had left the service of the 
United States to take service with the Confederacy, or those who 
owned property to the value of over $20,000. It was necessary for these 
to secure special pardons from the President. — Messages and Papers 
of the Presidents, vol. vi, pp. 310-312. 



59] 



PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 



59 



looted, the various departments were untenanted, the 
records were precariously exposed, there was even no roof 
on the capitol building. Immediately a commission was 
appointed to look into the condition of the treasury and the 
comptroller's department and to audit their accounts; state 
agents were appointed to look after and take charge of 
state property of whatever description in the various dis- 
tricts; and other agents were empowered to locate and re- 
cover if possible bonds alleged to have been illegally dis- 
posed of during the war. Judge James H. Bell, associate 
justice of the supreme court of the state before and during 
the war, but always a Union man, was appointed secretary of 
state ; Wm. Alexander, another Union man, who, it appears, 
had secretly opposed Hamilton's appointment, was made 
attorney-general. Taxes were assessed by proclamation and 
ordered collected. In response to the invitation above men- 
tioned, within a short time deputations of loyalists from 
over eighty counties made their way to Austin to aid in re- 
organizing the government. These men furnished the gov- 
ernor with names of loyal citizens from their counties for 
appointments to office, and were generally relied upon by 
him for information concerning conditions in the various 
parts of the state. 

As rapidly as possible officers of district, county, and 
justice courts, sheriffs, tax assessors and collectors, and 
county commissioners were appointed, and the machinery 
of the law set in motion. The courts were directed to pro- 
ceed with the trial of all civil and criminal cases in con- 
formity with existing laws of the state passed prior to 1861, 
and of the United States. 1 The time of holding district 

1 In one important particular a limitation was placed upon the juris- 
diction of the courts. Suits for the collection of debts and for the 
determination of rights of every kind could be instituted, and in those 



6o 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[60 



courts and the boundaries of the districts were to conform to 
acts passed since secession, " out of considerations of public 
policy and convenience." Negroes were to be tried and 
punished in the same manner as whites, but the governor 
left the question of their admission as witnesses to be de- 
termined by the courts themselves, on the ground that it was 
a judicial and not a political question, and that an executive 
decision might be overruled by some subsequent supreme 
court, or that the principle might fail to be embodied in the 
constitution by the future convention. 1 Attorneys-at-law 
not in the classes excepted from the general amnesty were, 

involving titles to land, damages, etc., the courts could proceed to final 
judgment and execution; but in suits for the collection of debts where 
the plaintiff was entitled to a writ of injunction, sequestration, or 
attachment, the court could not proceed to final judgment and execution. 
— See proclamation of September 8, Executive Records, Register Book, 
281. — The reason for this was that, in the prevalent condition of dis- 
order and financial depression, property disposed of by forced sale 
would bring little or nothing and an injustice would be worked upon 
the debtor. Later, by proclamation of December 5, the courts were 
empowered to proceed in such cases to final judgment, but execution 
was stayed. 

1 A. J. Hamilton to I. R. Burns, Executive Records, Register Book, 
281. The courts, thus left to themselves, varied greatly in their rul- 
ings. Judge C. Caldwell, in his charge to the grand jury of Harris 
county, instructed it that the abolition of slavery "has swept away 
those distinctions both as to protection and liability to punishment 
which have hitherto existed between whites and blacks." These distinc- 
tions and the exclusion of negroes as witnesses had been necessary to 
the secure tenure of the slaves ; but " when the reason of the law fails, 
the law likewise fails," therefore " the late slaves, now freedmen, stand 
upon terms of perfect equality with all other persons in the penal 
code." Hence all persons were alike subject to the penal law, and it 
necessarily followed "that persons of African descent" were "com- 
petent witnesses where any of their race were parties."— Tri-Weekly 
Telegraph, November 29, 1865. This was the view that Hamilton 
himself held. In most cases, however, the courts considered themselves 
bound by the state laws of i860 which prohibited negro testimony in 
any form. 



6i] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT fa 

upon taking the amnesty oath in open court, to be allowed 
to practice. 1 In all appointments, subscription to the am- 
nesty oath was required, but preference was given to men 
of undoubted loyalty in so far as such matters could be de- 
termined. In many counties fit " union " applicants were 
so scarce that it was necessary to appoint secessionists. A 
notable case of this sort was the selection of Richard Coke, 
later governor and United States senator, as judge of the 
nineteenth judicial district. Though there were frequent 
complaints from disgruntled " loyalist " office-seekers, the 
appointments seem to have given general satisfaction. 

The chief duty of the provisional governor, as set forth 
in the proclamation containing his appointment, was to pro- 
vide for the assembling of a constitutional convention 
elected by the loyal people of the state. The test of loyalty 
was simply the taking of the oath of amnesty — a policy suf- 
ficiently generous, and based, no doubt, upon the idea that 
the majority of the people had entered the war reluctantly 
and were at heart well-disposed toward the Federal gov- 
ernment. In accordance with instructions, Governor Ham- 
ilton, on August 19th, issued a proclamation providing for 
the registration of voters. In each county the chief justice, 
the district clerk, and the county clerk were to act as a board 
of registration and sit at least one day in each week at the 
county seat. The oath of amnesty was to be administered 
to all who applied, both to those who sought registration 
as voters, and to those who, being within the exceptions to 
the general amnesty, took it as a preliminary step toward 
special pardon. Separate rolls were to be kept of these two 

1 This rule was later so far modified as to allow attorneys and other 
persons in the excepted classes, when they had been recommended by 
the governor to the President for special pardon, to follow their pro- 
fessions pending the decision of the President. 



62 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[62 



classes. Meanwhile, the order for an election of delegates 
was withheld until the results of the registration should 
become known. This work, however, proceeded very 
slowly. Since there were no mails, it was many weeks 
before the proclamation reached some of the counties, and 
for those who lived far from the county seat where the 
board held its meetings, registration was usually a process 
involving considerable inconvenience. But even when this 
was not the case the people responded to the invitation 
without enthusiasm. The newspapers throughout the state 
united in urging them to register in order to hurry along 
the restoration to normal conditions. At the same time they 
urged the governor to order an election and to assemble 
the convention as early as possible, for in all the other states 
the conventions had completed their labors by the end of 
October. 

2. Loyalty and Disloyalty in the State. 
The governor and his friends were of the opinion that 
Texas was not yet in proper condition for the calling of the 
convention. It seemed to them that the people were not 
yet free from their ante-bellum delusions and did not yet 
clearly understand the problems they faced and the proper 
way in which to solve them. A lingering belief was mani- 
fest, for example, that compensation might yet be secured 
for the loss of slaves, and hence a reluctance to take the 
amnesty oath lest it should in some way estop claims for 
the compensation. There was still talk, here and there, of 
gradual emancipation; there was a disposition in some of 
the remote districts to keep the negroes in bondage and to 
treat with cruelty those who endeavored to exercise their 
freedom. A large part of the press and most of the seces- 
sionist politicians were prejudiced against the governor and 
secretly or openly hostile to the plans of the government. 



63] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT ^ 

Because of this Hamilton and his advisers considered it 
necessary, first to establish order and civil authority 
through the power of the provisional government and to 
enable the United States courts to repress treasonable ac- 
tion, and then allow time for the public mind to become tran- 
quillized and to be directed fairly toward the changes that 
would be necessary in the constitution. Because of the vast 
extent of the state and the impracticability of distributing 
sufficient troops everywhere to secure a speedy restoration 
of order, and owing to the utter absence of mail facilities 
for informing the people of the intentions of the govern- 
ment, it seemed best to make haste slowly. 1 Accordingly, 
with the view of making clear the work that must be done 
in the convention, if the state was to enjoy a speedy restora- 
tion to its normal place in the Union, the governor issued, 
on September nth, a lengthy address to the people of the 
state. After reviewing historically the whole question of 
slavery and secession, which he regarded as a long-con- 
tinued and elaborate conspiracy against the Union, and 
warning the people against the press and the politicians 
" who were still trying to mislead them by the same deadly 
doctrines/' he explained the necessity for his actions as gov- 
ernor, and then proceeded to state his views on that prob- 
lem which he thought the people were least ready to solve 
in a manner satisfactory to the Federal government. Slav- 
ery, he declared, was already wholly dead and could not 
be revived in any form. Compulsory labor laws would be 
regarded by the people of the North as a mere subterfuge 
and would not be tolerated; for the people of that section 
were united upon this one thing as they had never before 
been united upon anything — " that slavery must cease for- 

1 Letter of James H. Bell, E. M. Pease and others, also of A. J. 
Hamilton, MSS.. Johnson Papers. 



6 4 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[64 



ever." Now that the negro was to remain free, he must 
be given equal civil rights with the white man, and should 
have his testimony admitted in the courts in all cases, sub- 
ject only to the rules which applied to the testimony of 
whites. The governor warned the people that without some 
such action it would be useless to expect that senators and 
representatives from Texas would be allowed to take their 
seats in Congress. 1 In conclusion, he promised that the 
convention should be called as soon as the people should 
have qualified by taking the oath of amnesty and should 
have had an opportunity to discuss and consider well the 
momentous questions upon which their delegates would be 
required to take action; for it was essential to the speedy 
restoration of the state that no mistake be made. 

But whatever of wartime prejudice they may have har- 
bored against Governor Hamilton, and whatever they may 
have thought of his attitude upon the negro question, the 
people gave abundant evidence of good-will toward the pro- 
visional government itself. So weary had they become of 
disorder and lawlessness and so fearful of a purely military 
government, that any civil authority, even though one not 
of their own choosing, was welcome. As soon as the new 
state government had been set up, public meetings, usually 
without regard to political affiliation, were called in many 
counties, and resolutions were passed tendering the pro- 
visional governor the support of the citizens in the main- 
tenance of law and order and in the restoration of the civil 
government on the basis of the President's policy. In ad- 
dition, just and liberal treatment of the freedmen was 
usually advocated, and sometimes the people were urged 

1 The Tri-Weekly Telegraph had long before, July 18, expressed 
identical views. In commenting on the governor's address it emphati- 
cally endorsed his recommendations and urged the people to " support 
them promptly and in good faith." 



65] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 5^ 

to qualify as voters. In some instances where the secession 
element was preponderant, the resolutions simply " accepted 
the situation " and pledged support to the authorities. 1 

Party lines had by no means vanished, though they 
were at times ignored. The secessionist leaders were, of 
course, generally quiet ; but the approach of Federal troops 
and the return of numbers of refugees emboldened the 
Unionists in many localities to form Union associations that 
did not hesitate to take up a partisan attitude. " The Loyal 
Union Association " of Galveston, for example, organized 
the same day that Hamilton arrived from New Orleans, 
pledged itself " to vote for no man for office who had ever 
by free acts of his own tried to overthrow the government, 
but to support Union men always." 2 The " Union Asso- 
ciation of Bexar County " in November declared that it 
was necessary for Union men to be on their guard lest the 
element which had endeavored to destroy the Union get 
into power ; for the struggle, " not of arms but of prin- 
ciples," was to be fought over again. 3 

A cardinal doctrine of these Union associations was that 
a large portion of the people of the state ought not to be 
reinvested with political power, because of their continued 
disloyalty to the Federal government. Assertions to this 
effect were constantly reiterated and found prominent place 
in Northern journals, almost to the exclusion of reports 
of any other kind from Texas. As to the real strength of 
either the loyal or the disloyal sentiment in Texas at that 
time no accurate statement is possible. Beyond doubt, 
most people were not enthusiastic in their loyalty, and it 

1 For these meetings see the Tri-Weekly Telegraph, Texas Repub- 
lican, State Gazette, San Antonio Herald, and other papers throughout 
July and August, 1865. 

2 Flake's Bulletin, July 22, 1865. 

3 Tri-Weekly Telegraph, November 29, 1865. 



66 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[66 



was but natural that after four years of war such should 
have been the case. On the other hand, there was less bit- 
terness than was manifested under the harsh Congressional 
policy a few years later. Few had enjoyed the arbitrary 
regulations and exactions which the Confederacy had been 
obliged to impose, and there was little regret for the passing 
of that government. Perhaps the chief resentment against 
the conqueror grew out of the loss of property in slaves; 
and it seems certain that tardiness in taking the oath of 
amnesty, set down by some as a proof of disloyalty, was 
largely due to a fear that the oath might be a bar to any 
future compensation. The charge that the element that had 
been in power during the war hoped to get control of the 
state government again was beyond question true; but as 
they had not been disfranchised, there was no sensible 
reason why they should not have expected that. That they 
would have used the power thus recovered " to renew the 
rebellion", is in every way inconceivable; but that they 
would have turned it against the radicals of the North is 
certain, though to condemn that as treason seems a curious 
perversion of the term. 

Most of the charges of disloyalty in Texas were based 
upon alleged persecution and maltreatment of Union men 
and freedmen. It must be admitted that violence of this 
sort constantly occurred, but it appears to have been due 
far less to actual hostility to the Federal government than 
to the wide-spread disorder and lawlessness attending the 
break-up and the interregnum following it. The absence 
during that time of the ordinary peace officers had given 
free sway to turbulent characters of all sorts, encouraged 
pillage and robbery, permitted neighborhood feuds, jay- 
hawking and guerrilla marauding; and it is notable that 
violence was not directed against Unionists and freedmen 
alone. The fact that Union men had not always fully re- 



67] 



PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 



67 



covered their popularity among their neighbors, was not 
evidence in itself of actual disloyalty on the part of the 
latter; and that advantage was taken of such unpopularity 
by the rowdies who bullied, threatened, and sometimes 
robbed or murdered Unionists, is proof of the weakness of 
the arm of the law rather than of anything else. The vio- 
lence toward freedmen was due partly to that tendency of 
rowdyism to attack the weak and unprotected, and partly 
to resentment at the new insolence and the irrepressible 
bumptiousness of the freedman himself. 

In many counties the outlaws were so numerous and so 
well organized that they could defy arrest, and in others so 
few of the citizens had taken the amnesty oath that the 
courts were hampered and delayed by the difficulty of pro- 
curing jurors. 1 The number and character of the general 
petitions to the governor from various parts of the state 
asking for troops or the organization of county police, is 
sufficient proof of the nature of the disorders. For example, 
one from Bell County, October 9th, recites that " the civil 
authorities are helpless because the county is full of ruffians 
and lawless men," and demands troops. Another from 
Grayson County, November 10th, declares that " laws can 
not be enforced without the aid of the military." 2 In a 
letter to General Wright, September 27th, the governor said 
that crime was everywhere rampant, that the civil authori- 
ties alone could not be depended upon for some time, and 
that in many counties civil process could not be executed. 
He requested that military forces pass through the counties 
where none were stationed. 3 But there were large districts 

1 Jno. A. Buckholts to Governor Hamilton, MS. in Executive Cor- 
respondence. 

2 MSS. in Executive Correspondence. 

* Executive Records, Register Book, 281 



68 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[68 



comprising several counties that contained not a single 
soldier, and the troops were not sufficient to police thor- 
oughly the vast territory over which they exercised author- 
ity. Therefore, in response to petitions 1 from various quar- 
ters where outrages were occurring, and from others where 
fears of a negro uprising existed, the governor issued a 
proclamation, November i8th, authorizing the organiza- 
tion of a police force in each county, to be subject to the civil 
authorities and to act with the military. This police force 
was actually organized in several counties and seems to have 
been very effective in checking disorders. 

Under conditions of such universal violence and con- 
fusion, it would have been strange indeed if Union men had 
not been subject to insult and outrage. Undoubtedly there 
were cases of unprovoked violence against them, and there 
were cases in which mobs were guilty of intensely disloyal 
conduct, as when a crowd tore to pieces a United States 
flag on the court house at Weatherford, 2 or when another 
mob at Bonham beat and shot at a number of negroes and 
destroyed a flag. 3 But such occurrences were few and the 
preponderance of evidence goes to show that most of these 
outrages were committed in the northern part of the state 
and were the work of outlaws who had their headquarters 
in the Indian Territory and plundered and murdered with- 
out distinction of party. 4 

1 Various MSS. in Executive Correspondence. 

2 B. F. Barkley to Governor Hamilton, MS. in Executive Correspond- 
ence. 

8 R. B. Sanders to Anthony Bryant, endorsed by Col. M. M. Brown, 
U. S. A., MS. in Executive Correspondence. 

4 Judge Robert Wilson to Governor Throckmorton, MS. in Executive 
Correspondence; testimony of Ben C. Truman before Reconstruction 
Committee, House Reports, ist sess., 39th Cong., vol. 2, pt. iv, p. 137; 
Kendall to Schuyler Colfax, in San Antonio Herald, April 20, 1866. 



69] 



PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 



69 



Whether intended for that purpose or not, the reports 
that went from Texas of the mistreatment of Unionists 
made excellent political capital for the radical extremists in 
Congress, who had already begun their attacks on the Presi- 
dent's policy of restoration. Many of these stories were of 
the most extraordinary sort — such, for example, as those 
in the anonymous letters which Mr. Sumner was so fond of 
reading in the Senate 1 — and are unworthy of serious atten- 
tion. Perhaps the statements that gained most credence 
at the North were those of Federal officers who had been 
stationed in Texas. One of these, General Wm. E. Strong, 
inspector general on the staff of General O. O. Howard, is 
quoted in the New York Herald, in January, 1866, as say- 
ing that Texas was in the worst condition of any state that 
he had visited ; that almost the whole population was hostile 
in feeling and action to the United States ; that there was a 
mere semblance of government; and that the whites and 
negroes were everywhere ignorant, lawless, and starving. 2 
When before the Reconstruction Committee in March he 
reiterated the statements, adding that " one campaign of the 
United States army through eastern Texas, such as Sher- 
man's through South Carolina, would greatly improve thi 
temper and generosity of the people." General David S. 
Stanley, who had been stationed at San Antonio after the 
" break-up ", stated before the same committee that " Texas 
was worse than any other state because she had never been 
whipped," that the women were universally rebels, and that 
in case of a foreign war almost the entire population, with 
the exception of the Germans, who were very loyal, would 

1 See Congressional Globe, 1st sess., 39th Cong., pp. 91-95. 

2 Flake's Bulletin, though a staunch Unionist paper, declared this in- 
terview "a mere reporter's yarn" because it contained so many false 
statements. 



jO RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [70 

go ever to the enemy. 1 It was also commonly asserted that 
many rebels who had been quiet and submissive at the close 
of the war, were now, at the prospect of recovering control 
of the state, growing insolent and defiant. 

3. The Freedmen and the Freedmen' s Bureau. 
There was no subject connected with the restoration of 
the state government to the control of its people that the 
general public in the North watched with greater solicitude 
than the adjustment of the new relations with the freedmen. 
It had been announced that the treatment accorded these 
wards of the nation could be taken as a sure index of the 
loyalty of the Southern people. It was unfortunate that 
this mistaken idea should have been so generally accepted, 
and unfortunate, again, that the people of the South could 
not at once appreciate its power and the necessity of being 
guided by it. To the North, as the rebellion had been 
in behalf of slavery, the complete destruction of that insti- 
tution was the surest guarantee of the preservation of the 
Union, and any attempt to evade it seemed to be an ex- 
pression of rebellious sentiments. To the Southerner, eman- 
cipation had presented itself chiefly as a confiscation of his 
property, as an unwise and arbitrary upsetting of the in- 
dustrial system to which the negro belonged, and as an in- 
justice to the negro himself. The most immediate and press- 
ing problem, it seemed, was to preserve the normal balance 
of society, and to provide for the freedman an industrial 
position in that society such that agricultural interests would 
suffer the least possible additional shock; for it was gener- 
ally believed that free negro labor would be a failure and 
that a labor famine was imminent. 2 

1 See House Reports, 1st sess., 39th Cong., vol. 2, part iv, pp. 37 
and 39-40. 

2 It was because of this that throughout 1865 and 1866 a constant 



yi ] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 7I 

In fact, the experiences of the summer of 1865 in Texas 
had been such as to warrant no other opinion. In the south- 
central and south-eastern counties in particular, where the 
actual presence of the military made it difficult for the whites 
to apply coercion, the blacks had, with some exceptions, 
either preferred not to enter into contracts to labor or had 
not kept them when made. How could they be free, the 
negroes reasoned, if they still had to work in the fields? 
Throughout the summer months they had slipped away 
from the plantations as opportunity offered or whim sug- 
gested, and despite the military regulations to the contrary, 
large numbers collected around the towns where, luxuria- 
ting in idleness and heedless of the next winter, they eked 
out a meagre subsistence by petty thieving, begging, or 
doing occasional odd jobs. Crowded together indiscrimi- 
nately in small huts, they rapidly fell victims to disease and 
vices of all sorts. 1 

Meanwhile the harvest time approached and despite the 
fact that the acreage was not large, there were not enough 
laborers to gather the crops. The freedmen had become 
possessed of the singular delusion that on the following 
Christmas the government would divide among them the 
lands of their former masters. The government had given 
them their freedom without their asking for it; they had 
heard rumors from various quarters that they would be 
given property — why should it not be true ? There was no 
use in working if they were to be made rich in a little while ; 
so they met all propositions to work with the response: 

agitation was going on for promoting the immigration of white labor. 
One meets it everywhere, in the press, in public speeches, in resolutions 
of public meetings, in the deliberations of the constitutional convention 
and of the legislature. 

1 See The Southern Intelligencer (Austin), September 29. All news- 
papers of the late summer bear evidence to this effect. 



72 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[72 



" We'll wait 'til Christmas." 1 It is small wonder that the 
planter who saw his old field hands idling their time away 
in town, improvident as children, making no preparations 
for the rigors of winter, sinking into demoralization and 
crime, while his crop went to waste for the lack of their 
labor, should have looked forward to some remedy, some 
law that would bring back these victims of a mistaken phil- 
anthropy to the work which their own welfare as well as 
that of the general public seemed to demand. None but a 
system of coercion, he thought, offered any promise of the 
necessary relief. 

The Freedmen's Bureau, created by act of Congress, 
March 3, 1865, to take control of all subjects relating to 
freedmen, refugees, and abandoned lands in the conquered 
states, did not begin operations in Texas until much later 
than elsewhere. The assistant commissioner appointed for 
Texas, General E. M. Gregory, arrived at Galveston late 
in September, and, although he seems to have been actively 
at work, it was not until December that he so far perfected 
an organization as to appoint a dozen local agents, of whom 
five were civilians, at the most important points in the in- 

1 Weekly State Gazette (Austin), November 25, 1865. It is impos- 
sible to fix the whole responsibility for this belief. The Federal officers 
said that it should fall upon those citizens and public speakers who 
during the war declared that if the " Yankees " won, the negroes would 
be freed, property confiscated and given to them, and the whites en- 
slaved. The negroes believed and remembered. Strong, House Exec. 
Docs., no. 70, p. 308, 1st sess., 39th Cong. The citizens, on the other 
hand, asserted that the Northern radicals who talked of " forty acres 
and a mule " had started it ; and that many of the Federal soldiers, in 
order to wheedle money from the negroes, fraternized with them, told 
them there would be a division of land at Christmas, and that the 
soldiers who had won them their freedom would help them and stand 
by them. — C. B. Stuart to Governor Hamilton, MS. in Executive Cor- 
respondence. Probably both accusations were true. 



73] 



PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 



73 



terior. 1 In the meantime, the local work had been carried 
on by the various post commanders. From the beginning 
General Gregory addressed himself assiduously to amelior- 
ating the labor situation. In his first circular order, Oc- 
tober 1 2th, after emphasizing the freedom of the blacks and 
making clear that the Bureau was authorized not only to act 
for them and to adjudicate all cases in which they were con- 
cerned if the civil courts had failed them, but also to give 
them substantial protection, he urged upon the freedmen 
the necessity for their going to work under contracts care- 
fully drawn up and approved and registered by the Bureau. 
All officers and good citizens were enjoined to disabuse the 
minds of the freedmen of any idea of a Christmas division 
of property. In November, General Gregory, in company 
with Inspector-General Strong, made a tour through the 
eastern counties for the purpose of acquainting himself with 
conditions there. During the trip he endeavored to give 
the blacks a knowledge of their real situation, especially 
with reference to the necessity for and the manner of mak- 
ing contracts for the next year. He returned exceedingly 
optimistic with regard to the character and promise of the 
sable populace. 2 

In the meantime, so many petitions had poured in upon 

1 See his Circular Order no. 2, House Exec. Docs., no. 70, p. 147, 
1st sess., 39th Cong. 

2 In the light of over forty years of subsequent history, the following 
statement, made soon afterwards, is highly diverting: "The freedmen 
are, as a general thing, strongly impressed with religious sentiments, 
and their morals are equal if not superior to those of a majority of the 
better informed and educated. We find them not only willing but 
anxious to improve every opportunity offered for their moral and intel- 
lectual advancement," etc. It is also an example of the pathetic ignor- 
ance which some of these high officials had of their wards. Report to 
General O. O. Howard, House Exec. Docs., no. 70, p. 375, 1st sess., 
39th Cong. 



74 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[74 



the governor to forestall a threatened uprising of the blacks 
at Christmas that he authorized the organization of county 
police. 1 Furthermore, on November 17th, he issued an ad- 
dress to the negroes which he caused the chief justice of 
each county to read to them. He told them in the plainest 
terms that they must go to work, that they could not remain 
idle without becoming criminal, that they would get nothing 
more from the government either at Christmas or at any 
other time, and that if they disturbed the property of others 
they would be severely punished. Reinforced by the efforts 
of General Gregory and the army officials, the address seems 
to have had a very good effect, but many of the negroes 
still cherished a lingering hope until it was dispelled at 
Christmas. 

General Gregory exerted himself during December and 
January to put labor upon a firm basis for the next year; 
and, though his lack of intimate understanding of the negro 
character and his failure to appreciate and to take into ac- 
count the common notions of social precedence often gave 
offense to the whites and retarded somewhat the success of 
his plans, his energy and perseverance did much to bring 
about a more hopeful situation. Planters were urged to 
settle with the laborers for the past season and to make 
contracts with them at once for the ensuing year on fair 
and liberal terms. 2 In order to promote the contract system 
he made a trip through the lower river-bottom counties 

1 Supra, p. 64. 

2 There was considerable complaint on the part of the blacks that they 
were not promptly paid for the season past. The delay was sometimes 
due to the scarcity of specie, sometimes to disputes over alleged violations 
of contracts by negroes, sometimes to the employer's dishonest endeavor 
to take advantage of the freedman's ignorance. Frequently the con- 
tracts made in the early summer had provided that the negroes work 
for board, clothing, and medical attendance, and these also were prolific 
sources of trouble. Supra, p. 45. 



75] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 

where the black population was densest. General conditions 
came to his aid. Cotton planting was immensely profitable 
because of the high prices then being paid for the staple, 
and planters who were sceptical of free negro labor grew 
willing to give it a trial. With the calling of the constitu- 
tional convention, political affairs began to assume a more 
stable aspect, so that people were no longer apprehensive of 
confiscation. Many of the blacks who had been brought 
into Texas during the war were now making their way 
back into the other states. 1 The demand for labor grew 
keener. On the other hand, the negroes, having been dis- 
appointed in their Christmas expectations, were more ready 
to work. In many instances, too, where they were out of 
reach of the Bureau's commissary stores, their previous im- 
providence now forced them to work to secure food. A 
report from Washington County in the black belt, January 
24th, stated that in that county two-thirds of the freed 
population were then at work at good wages, that seven 
thousand contracts had been filed already, and that unem- 
ployed freedmen were becoming scarce. 2 Similar reports 
came from other communities and the situation gradually 
grew more promising throughout the state. 

It may not be inappropriate at this point to indicate 
briefly the general character of the work the Bureau had to 
do in Texas. There were no abandoned lands in the state 
and the Union refugees usually depended upon the military 
for such protection as they needed ; consequently the activi- 
ties of the Bureau were confined to looking after the inter- 
ests of the negro. These activities may be classified roughly 
as relief work, educational work, labor supervision, and 

1 Report of General Strong, House Exec. Docs., no. 70, p. 312, 1st 
sess., 39th Cong. 

2 Flake's Bulletin, January 24, 1866. 



7 6 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[76 



judicial protection. Its supervision of labor interests, that 
is, oversight of contracts and wages, has already been con- 
sidered, and for the others brief statements will suffice. The 
actual relief work done was comparatively slight. Rations 
were issued somewhat extensively by the military au- 
thorities in the early summer, but since there was plenty of 
food to be had for work, this practice was gradually checked. 
During the winter the number fed increased, but by 
the end of January only sixty-seven were receiving gov- 
ernment support. 1 One hospital had been established, but 
ceased to be used after the close of winter. 2 The educa- 
tional work was under the charge of Lieutenant E. M. 
Wheelock, who, by the end of January had in operation 
twenty-six day and night schools with an enrollment of 
about sixteen hundred pupils. 3 These schools were sup- 
ported partly by voluntary contributions, partly by a small 
tuition fee. But that function of the Bureau which, from 
the manner in which it was exercised, caused more irrita- 
tion to the whites than any other, was the extension of pro- 
tection over the negro in the state courts. In localities 
where such courts, by reason of the old code, refused to 
allow the negro to give testimony or otherwise denied him 
justice, it was made the duty of all Bureau officials to with- 
draw from the courts and themselves adjudicate cases in 
which a freedman was concerned. 4 Unfortunately, the wide 
powers here implied were not always used with honesty 
or discretion; and too often, by arbitrary or needless inter- 
ference with the regular courts, the Bureau forfeited public 

1 Gregory to Howard, House Exec. Docs., no. 70, p. 305, 1st sess., 
39th Cong. Sick and aged negroes were required to be supported by 
their former masters. 

2 Peirce, The Freedmeris Bureau, p. 90. 

8 Gregory to Howard, House Exec. Docs., loc. cit., p. 307. 
4 O. O. Howard, Circular Order, Ibid., p. 146. 



77] 



PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 



77 



confidence and weakened its efforts along other lines. How- 
ever, the worst abuses developed only after the suffrage 
had given political power into the hands of the negro and 
had made it profitable for the ambitious Bureau agent to 
court his favor. For the time the zealous activity of the 
assistant commissioner in clearing the towns of idle negroes 
won the good will of the press and the public. 1 

4. Relations of the Civil and the Military Authorities 
The proclamation appointing Governor Hamilton had 
neither clearly defined the powers of the provisional gov- 
ernor, nor explained his proper relations with the military 
authorities further than to order that they should aid him 
in the performance of his duties and not interfere with him. 
It was evident, however, that while each within a certain 
sphere enjoyed exclusive authority, there was a region over 
which they exercised concurrent or rival jurisdiction; and 
it early became clear that conflicts were likely to arise in 
matters pertaining to the maintenance of public order, es- 
pecially in criminal cases. Prior to the establishment of the 
provisional civil courts, all criminal cases had been disposed 
of through military courts; and, while it was generally ex- 
pected that the latter would now abandon a large class of 
cases to the civil authorities, the military jurisdiction over 
such matters had not been expressly abrogated or curtailed. 
The establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau courts in- 
creased the opportunities for conflicts. There were, there- 
fore, three classes of courts in the state, all claiming crimi- 
nal jurisdiction. The army claimed control of all matters 
in which soldiers or employees of the government were in- 
volved, and was responsible for the maintenance of order 

1 Flake's Bulletin, January 24; San Antonio Herald, March 5; Gal- 
veston News, March 6, 1866. 



78 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[78 



where the civil courts were not organized; the Freedmen's 
Bureau exercised jurisdiction over matters relating to f reed- 
men, especially where it was believed that the civil authori- 
ties would not do them justice; the civil courts claimed juris- 
diction in all criminal cases, though in the face of the mili- 
tary power, these claims were not always strenuously as- 
serted. 

Governor Hamilton and General Wright, the department 
commander, 1 preserved amicable relations throughout, and 
endeavored in every way to prevent a conflict. On August 
17th the governor wrote to General C. C. Andrews, one of 
the district commanders, requesting that a white man, 
whom the military had arrested for the murder of a freed- 
man, be turned over to the civil court for trial. 2 The gov- 
ernor was evidently not sure of his ground, for he asked 
what course the military authorities proposed to take in 
criminal cases. He expressed the opinion that it would be 
entirely safe to remit all offenders to the civil courts for 
trial and that it would be good policy to do so, since the 
people felt much anxiety in the matter. Soon afterwards 
he changed his mind. On September 27th he wrote to 
General Wright, asking that the military branch of the gov- 
ernment execute vigorous punishment upon criminals, and 
confessing that the civil authorities could not be depended 
upon for some time. With respect to the relations between 
the two, he did not regard the provisional government of 
the state as having superseded the military authority. His 
view of the political condition of Texas was this : 

There is no constitutional state government. The provisional 

1 General H. G. Wright relieved General Granger of command of the 
Department of Texas on August 6, 1865. 

2 Executive Records, Register Book, 281. 



79] 



PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 



79 



government of Texas is created by and exists at the will of 
the President. My authority as provisional governor is lim- 
ited to such measures as may be necessary to prepare the 
people of the state and provide means for a convention to 
organize a new constitutional state government, which, when 
adopted and recognized by the general government, will super- 
sede, within the limits of its jurisdiction, the military power 
in all things not properly pertaining to the military authority 
of the United States in time of peace. For the present, the 
action of the civil authorities created by me is allowed only 
as a means — to the extent that they can be made available — 
of aiding the authorities of the general government in preserv- 
ing public peace and order, and in protecting individual rights 
and property. I have felt sure the general government would 
not object to such quasi-civil government as I have tempor- 
arily effected, but it would be in conflict with the views of the 
government to claim for the provisional government any 
power except such as emanates directly from the President. 
In this view I not only see no objection to the trial of offend- 
ers before military tribunals, but believe it a necessity unavoid- 
able without great detriment to the highest interests of the 
people. 1 

In reply to this, General Wright disclaimed any wish 
to interfere with civil processes when it could be avoided. 
He said : 

It was understood when I assumed command that, ist, all 
matters between white citizens of the state were to be acted 
on by the civil authorities constituted by you, as far as prac- 
ticable. 2d. That matters in which freedmen were concerned 
were to be left to the action of the Freedmen's Bureau, which 
was to act through specially appointed agents, of which your 
officers might form a part. 3rd. That the military authority 
should confine itself to matters pertaining to the military, and 



1 MS. in Executive Correspondence. 



80 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [go 

should give necessary aid either to the civil authority or to the 
Freedmen's Bureau. 

Since it seemed that this program, though highly desirable, 
could not be carried out, he agreed 

to issue an order directing military commanders to turn over 
to civil tribunals all criminal cases, wherein soldiers are not 
concerned, where the civil authority is in condition to act, and 
where justice to all concerned can be looked for — the colored 
man being put upon perfect equality with the white before 
the courts — and where such justice can not be expected, to 
bring the cases for trial before a military commission or a 
Freedman's Bureau court. 1 

An understanding was thus effected defining more clearly 
the limitations within which each class of officials was to 
exercise jurisdiction; but it necessarily left unsettled the 
questions as to when the civil authority was strong enough 
to deal with public disorders without the interference of 
the military, and whether the civil court was granting the 
freedman the privileges to which he was entitled. The 
effectiveness of such an agreement would depend chiefly 
upon the mutual forbearance of those entrusted with carry- 
ing it out in detail, and it was too much to expect a great 
measure of that quality from the average post commander, 
ignorant of the civil law and impatient of a less direct 
method than that to which the camp had accustomed him, or 
from the judge who sought to uphold the dignity of the 
civil authority and felt constrained to base his acts upon 
what remained of the old code. 

The first serious trouble was at Victoria, where Colonel 
I. T. Rose, of the 77th Pennsylvania, was stationed. Eight 

1 MS. in Executive Correspondence. 



8i] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT g r 

distinct charges of outrageous conduct on the part of Rose 
were laid before the governor. 1 Finally, a white man, 
M. M. Gwinn, who had killed a negro and had been ac- 
quitted in a preliminary trial in open court, in which the 
testimony of negroes was freely admitted, was, after being 
released, rearrested by Rose and confined in jail. A cer- 
tified copy of the proceedings of the court was put in the 
hands of the governor, who sent a peppery letter to the 
Colonel, demanded the release of Gwinn, and laid the 
matter before General Wright. Wright ordered the release 
of Gwinn and soon afterwards Rose was transferred to duty 
elsewhere. 

A more serious affair occurred at Jefferson. R. L. 
Robertson, acting as treasury agent, was indicted by a grand 
jury on three distinct charges, two of swindling and one 
of theft. He was released by the interference of Captain 
Jones, the post commander. He was again arrested and 
his release was ordered of District Judge Gray by Major 
Clingman, at Marshall. After the judge had twice refused, 
Captain Jones with a body of soldiers forcibly took Robert- 
son from jail. The civil authorities appealed to the gov- 
ernor; the military appealed to their superiors. General 
Canby issued the following: "State courts have no juris- 
diction over their [treasury agents'] official conduct, nor 
can they, without usurpation, investigate the title of prop- 

1 Among these charges were the following : ( i ) Robert Tibbett was 
confined in jail for nine days on no charge whatever. He employed 
counsel, who was threatened with imprisonment if he pressed matters. 
(2) A negro, arrested and jailed for horse-stealing, was released by 
Rose. (3) Another negro, committed on two distinct charges, was 
likewise released by soldiers. (4) Judge L. A. White, who had gone 
to Rose to complain of depredations of soldiers, was cursed, abused, 
shot at, and jailed by the drunken colonel. He was released only 
when he agreed to drop the matter. — C. Carsner and others to Governor 
Hamilton, MSS. in Executive Correspondence. 



82 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[82 



erty held by the United States as captured and abandoned." 
Concerning this Judge Gray wrote to Hamilton : " The dis- 
trict court of Marion County has never claimed jurisdiction 
over the official acts of agents of the government, but when 
an agent violates the penal code, the district court has 
claimed and exercised jurisdiction over him. As well had 
the agent claimed freedom from arrest for murder as for 
any other crime." The judge then said that if he could 
not punish cotton thieves he would not punish any, and 
declined to hold other courts. In the meantime, his arrest 
was threatened if the indictments were not withdrawn. 
The matter dragged along in this fashion until all attempts 
to bring Robertson to justice had to be abandoned. 1 

Aside from the disputes over the respective jurisdictions 
of the civil and military, in some localities the conduct of 
the troops was a source of irritation and complaint. In the 
summer of 1865 Flake's Bulletin, of Galveston, was full of 
references to outrages perpetrated by the Federal soldiers 
stationed in that city. Open robbery, insults to women, and 
disorderly conduct were matters of daily comment. The 
troubles at Victoria have already been indicated. The troops 
here were white. By far the greatest complaint was against 
the colored troops that were brought into the state in the late 
summer and fall to replace the white volunteer regiments 
that were being discharged. In November a petition was 
sent Governor Hamilton from Jackson County for relief 
from a body of three hundred negro troops that had been 
detailed there to cut ties for the Lavaca and San Antonio 
Railroad. These negroes were heavily armed and parties 
of them roamed about the country robbing plantations, in 
suiting and sometimes outraging women, inciting the resi 

1 See various letters, MSS., in Executive Correspondence. Also The 
Southern Intelligencer, December 21, 1865. 



83 J PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 

dent negroes to like conduct, and keeping the whole country 
in constant terror. 1 Negro troops were quartered at Gal- 
veston in the winter, and were constantly giving trouble. 
In the latter part of February they broke loose from all 
restraint and spread terror over the city. A young lady, a 
member of one of the most respectable families, was as- 
saulted and horribly treated, and several persons were at- 
tacked and shot at. The Bulletin of February 28, 1866, 
says : " On Saturday these outrages reached their climax, 
stimulated, no doubt, by the terrible homicide of the day. 
During Saturday and Sunday a reign of terror, which has 
not yet wholly subsided, held sway over the city/' After 
recounting a number of unprovoked attacks upon the citi- 
zens, it goes on to say : " The peace of the city must be pre- 
served. If the police force can not do it, then let the mili- 
tary officials take entire control; and if they can not, then 
the citizens must do it for themselves. " There were num- 
bers of other collisions less conspicuous. Ben C. Truman, 
the able correspondent of the New York Times, in a com- 
munication published March 5th, says that large numbers of 
deserters from the volunteer regiments in the western part 
of the state were committing all sorts of murders and out- 
rages in the country, most of which were charged against 
the people of that section. 

One of the most troublesome problems that the state had 
to face at this time was the condition of its frontier. This 
region had been subject to Indian attacks throughout the 
war, but some attempt at organized protection had been 
made by the state and Confederate authorities. After the 
withdrawal of the Confederate troops from the west, the 
Indians, the Comanches in particular, began raiding and 



1 Petition and letters to Governor Hamilton, MSS. in Executive Cor- 
respondence. 



8 4 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[84 



murdering in the exposed settlements. The people were 
unable to defend themselves from the sudden attacks, and 
the depredations became more frequent and of greater mag- 
nitude. Throughout 1865 an d x 866 the whole extent of the 
frontier from north to south was in constant terror and be- 
came almost depopulated. The governor was besieged with 
petitions for troops and made repeated requests to General 
Wright for cavalry. Wright disclaimed any authority over 
the cavalry and referred the matter to Sheridan. Sheridan 
refused the troops on the ground that they were needed at 
interior garrisons for the protection of freedmen. Ham- 
ilton, too, believed that there were not enough troops in the 
interior to maintain order, and thereafter contented himself 
with appealing to Washington for more soldiers for Texas. 
Almost two years elapsed, however, before frontier posts 
were finally established and some measure of protection af- 
forded. 



CHAPTER V 



The Constitutional Convention of 1866 

11 was not until November 15th, nearly three months 
from the beginning of registration, that, a majority of the 
voters having qualified, a proclamation was issued fixing 
the date of the election for January 8, 1866. The conven- 
tion was to meet at Austin on February 7th and was to con- 
sist of delegates equal in number to the members of the lower 
house of the state legislature and distributed among the 
counties in like manner. Delegates were not required to be 
residents of the districts selecting them, and no person 
within the classes excepted from the general amnesty was 
eligible as a delegate unless pardoned by the President. This 
last provision was criticised as exceeding the governor's 
instructions, for the only restriction imposed by the Presi- 
dent's proclamation was that each delegate should have 
taken the amnesty oath. 

Now that the election and the assembling of the conven- 
tion were definitely provided for, candidates appeared and 
a livelier interest was shown in the questions that must come 
up for settlement. By this time the example of the other 
states and the known attitude of the President had wrought 
practical unanimity on the points that seemed most im- 
portant: that slavery was a thing of the past and that the 
fact should be recognized in an amendment to the constitu- 
tion; that the war debt should be annulled or repudiated; 
and that the act of secession should be nullified. But as to 
the manner in which these things should be done, and as to 
the settlement of certain related problems, there was wide 
85] 85 



86 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[86 



divergence of opinion. Should the secession ordinance be 
repealed simply, or declared null by reason of the failure 
of the war, or null and void from its inception? The war 
debt must be nullified; but what of a certain portion of the 
civil debt that had been used indirectly in prosecution of the 
war, and another portion that had been contracted in a 
manner prohibited by the constitution of 1845? I* was 
agreed that slavery must be abolished ; but what of the status 
of the f reedman ? To what extent would it be safe and ex- 
pedient to invest him with those civil rights that had long 
been the very foundations of liberty for the dominant race? 

All of these were matters of the highest importance, but 
perhaps the last received the greatest attention. With re- 
spect to it most of the candidates showed varying degrees 
of conservatism. W. C. Dalrymple, who proved the suc- 
cessful candidate in Williamson and Travis counties, said 
in a published letter : 

My opponents, . . . each and all, concede something to the 
negroes ; some more, some less, approximating to equality with 
the white race. I concede them nothing but the station of 
" hewers of wood and drawers of water ". ... If a republi- 
can form of government is to be sustained, the white race 
must do it without any negro alloy. A mongrel Mexico af- 
fords no fit example for imitation. I desire the perpetuation 
of a white man's government. . . . The negro is and must 
remain free. This is one of the results of the late conflict. 
He must be protected in person and property; this is due to 
justice and humanity, but I hope and believe that legislative 
wisdom can devise some mode of securing fully those rights 
without an equality in the courts , of the country. Of course 
I am opposed to negro suffrage in whatever form or with 
whatever limitations it may be proposed. 1 

This was the ultra-conservative view. Another candidate, 

1 State Gazette, January 6, 1866. 



87] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 g 7 

also successful, Colonel M. T. Johnson, of Tarrant county, 
a moderate Unionits, declared in a published circular his 
opposition to granting the negro any political rights what- 
ever, and insisted that he should be made to work by uni- 
form laws regulating pauperism, labor, and apprenticeship; 
but at the same time asserted the necessity of treating him 
with justice and kindness in his helpless condition. 1 A 
large number favored allowing the freedman a right to tes- 
tify in cases in which a negro was concerned. A few, the 
most advanced, would have extended this right to all cases. 
There seems to have been only one candidate, E. Degener, 
a prominent German of San Antonio, who openly advo- 
cated negro suffrage. 

The most notable contribution to the public discussion 
was a long and earnest letter to the people of Texas from 
John H. Reagan, then a prisoner of war at Fort Warren, 
Boston, where he had been confined since his capture in 
May. This letter was truly remarkable for the clearness 
with which it grasped the real facts of the situation and pre- 
dicted the results that must inevitably flow from a failure 
to apprehend the spirit prevailing among the people of the 
North. It was written on August 11, 1865, and was pub- 
lished in the Texas papers about the first of October. The 
state, Reagan thought, occupied the position of a conquered 
nation. The state government would not be restored until a 
policy should be adopted acceptable to the will of the con- 
querors. " A refusal to accede to these conditions would 
only result in a prolongation of the time during which you 
will be deprived of the civil government of your own choice, 
and will continue subject to military rule." In order to 
avoid this danger it was necessary to recognize the supreme 
authority of the United States government and its right 

1 San Antonio Daily Herald, January 3, 1866. 



88 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[88 



to protect itself against secession, and to recognize the abo- 
lition of slavery and the right of freedmen to the privileges 
and protection of the law. It seemed probable, however, 
that this alone would not satisfy the people of the North; 
it was very probable, in fact, that they would demand noth- 
ing less than suffrage for the freedmen. Reagan thought 
the South in no position to resist such a demand, although 
bitter opposition was to be expected on the part of Southern 
men. The demand could be satisfied by: First, admitting 
the testimony of negroes in the courts, subject only to the 
same rules as applied to whites; second, fixing an intel- 
lectual, moral, and if necessary, a property test for the ad- 
mission of all persons to the elective franchise, regardless 
of race or color, provided that no person previously entitled 
to vote should be deprived of the right by any new test. 
The results of such a policy would be to remove the grounds 
of hostility between the races and put an end to sectional 
and interstate agitation. 1 

Whatever the inherent soundness of these views, they 
failed to find much support in Texas. The public was far 
from ready for a strategic move involving so many conces- 
sions, and a perfect storm of disapproval arose. Reagan 
was compelled to suffer for a time the opprobrium so often 
the lot of those who can see further into the future than 
their fellows. 2 

1 This letter is reprinted in Reagan's Memoirs, pp. 286-295. The 
original MS. is in the Executive Correspondence, Executive Archives. 

2 His course, however, won him a measure of executive clemency. 
Hamilton warmly approved the letter, and both he and ex-Governor 
Pease wrote to President Johnson to secure a psfrole for Reagan in 
order that he might return to Texas, where it was hoped his great 
influence and integrity of character would be useful in securing the 
best interest of the state. (See MS. in Johnson Papers.) He was 
immediately released, but found his opinions in such disfavor that he 
retired to the privacy of his farm without taking any further part in 
the discussion of public matters. 



89] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 89 

The elections passed off quietly, only a small vote being 
cast because of the inclemency of the weather. Until the 
delegates assembled at Austin, as appointed, February 7th, 
there was considerable doubt as to what element would be 
in control. It was soon apparent that a strong minority 
were " unionists ". Of these the more prominent were I. A. 
Paschal and E. Degener, of San Antonio ; John Hancock, of 
Austin, always a staunch opponent of secession, but now in- 
clined to a moderate policy; J. W. Throckmorton, later 
"conservative" governor; E. J. Davis, later " radical" 
governor; Shields, X. B. Saunders, Latimer, R. H. Taylor, 
Ledbetter, and J. W. Flanagan. A number of equally ag- 
gressive " secessionists " were present ; some of whom were 
in the classes excepted from the general amnesty and had so 
far failed to secure Presidential pardon. The most con- 
spicuous was O. M. Roberts, who had been president of the 
secession convention in 1861 and whose presence was there- 
fore especially resented by those who regarded secession 
as treason. Of the same class were ex-Governor H. R. 
Runnels, John Ireland, C. A. Frazier, D. C. Giddings, R. A. 
Reeves, ex-Governor Henderson, J. W. Whitfield, and T. 
N. Waul. A considerable element in the convention, the 
group which really held the balance of power, should be 
classed as merely conservative. They were likely to vote 
against the unionists out of opposition to radicalism rather 
than because of hostility to the United States government. 

The convention took up its work in the most leisurely 
manner. The greater part of the first three days was con- 
sumed in the mere preliminaries of organization. J. W. 
Throckmorton was elected president on the second ballot 
His election was regarded with satisfaction on all sides. 
He was an original unionist, one of the seven who had 
voted against the ordinance of secession in 1861, but he had 
entered the Confederate service as commissioner to the In- 



9 o RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [g 

dians and had risen to the rank of brigadier-general. As 
president of the convention he was drawn more and more 
to the side of the majority and became the chief defender 
in Texas of President Johnson's policy. 

The first skirmish between the opposing factions came on 
the third day, when Paschal introduced a resolution to ap- 
point a committee to notify the governor that the convention 
was organized and " ready to take the constitutional oath," 
and to receive any communication he thought proper to 
make. 1 The secessionists were up in arms immediately 
against taking the constitutional oath. Roberts, Reeves, 
and Frazier hotly insisted that the delegates had met only 
in " a primitive capacity " to make a constitution and to 
organize a government; that they had no status as officers 
of the United States, and therefore it was not incumbent 
upon them to take an oath of such character. Paschal and 
Saunders defended the resolution by pointing out that as 
the convention had been called by the authority of the 
United States to frame a state government in accordance 
with the laws of the United States, it was just as necessary 
for the members to take the regular oath as it was for any 
other officials acting under that government to take it. At 
this juncture, Hancock, reputed a " soft unionist," offered 
as a compromise an amendment under which those members 
who had not already done so should take the amnesty oath, 
while no oath at all should be required of the other members. 2 
This was by no means satisfactory to the unionists and in 
an effort to strike out the amendment they were defeated 
by the narrow margin of thirty-nine to forty-one. Han- 

1 See Convention Journal, p. II. 

2 Convention Journal, p. 12. For report of debate, see Flake's Daily 
Bulletin, February 15, 1866, or Ben C. Truman in New York Times, 
March 5, 1866. 



9 i ] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 g T 

cock's amendment was adopted and the resolution passed. 
It was the first alignment of forces and it is worth noting 
that the president, Throckmorton, supported Paschal's reso- 
lution. Before the next day the victorious reactionaries re- 
pented of their action. It would not do for the news to go 
abroad that the first act of the convention had been an ex- 
pression of hostility, or at least of disrespect, toward the 
national constitution. After a hurried consultation they de- 
cided to retrace their steps. Immediately after convening 
next morning, Hancock moved a reconsideration of his reso- 
lution, and it was carried by an overwhelming majority, 
only eleven irreconcilables, among whom were Giddings, 
Ireland, and Runnels, opposing. Paschal then offered the 
resolution for taking the regular constitutional oath, and it 
passed this time without a division. 

On the same day the message of Governor Hamilton was 
received. He recapitulated the instructions contained in his 
appointment, explained the necessity for his going beyond 
the letter of them in placing on the registration boards per- 
sons not designated by the President, and called attention 
to the fact that, contrary to the provisions of his proclama- 
tion governing the election, several persons who had been 
excepted from the amnesty and had not received the special 
pardon, were now occupying seats in the convention. After 
defending his course in not calling the convention earlier, 
and expressing concern at the apathy of the people in the 
elections, he pointed out that the other states had by too 
hasty action passed measures that debarred them from se- 
curing representation in Congress, and suggested that Texas 
might, by observing the developments elsewhere, profit by 
this delay. It was expected by the President, by Congress, 
and by the people of the United States that such changes 
would be made in the organic law of the state as would make 
it conform in spirit and principle to the actual changes 



92 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[92 



wrought by the war. In the first place it would be expected 
that the convention express a clear and explicit denial, in 
such form as seemed proper, of the right to secede from the 
Union. In the second place it would be expected to mani- 
fest " a cheerful acquiescence " in the abolition of slavery 
by a proper amendment to the constitution. Both of these 
questions had already been definitely settled on the field of 
battle and the sole function of the delegates was to recog- 
nize fittingly an accomplished fact. The next duty of the 
convention would be to repudiate the debt incurred by the 
state in support of the war; for to provide for its payment 
would be to justify its purposes. What portion of the total 
public debt incurred since the beginning of the war was of 
this character it would be difficult to ascertain; but it 
seemed that it would probably amount to three-fourths, and 
the report of ex-Governor Pease and Swante Palm was 
furnished to facilitate an investigation. Finally, and most 
important of all, was the determination of the civil and polit- 
ical status of the freedmen. Here the governor expressed 
an apprehension that his views would not be acceptable to 
the majority of the convention, but he repeated his previous 
warning that if any legislation tending to re-establish slavery 
or to nullify any of the proper effects of emancipation were 
indulged in, or anything less than the full civil rights of free 
citizens were granted the blacks, it would delay indefinitely 
the return of the state to its normal place in the Union. In 
addition to full rights in the courts and in the holding of 
property, he earnestly advised the convention to make it 
possible in the future for the negro to attain to political suf- 
frage. 

I do not believe [he said] that the great mass of the freedmen 
in our midst are qualified by their intelligence to exercise the 
right of suffrage, and I do not desire to see this privilege con- 



93] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 93 

f erred upon them; [but] if we fail to make political privi- 
leges depend upon rules of universal application, we will in- 
evitably be betrayed into legislation under the influence of 
ancient prejudices and with a view only to the present. I 
think that human wisdom can not discern what is to be the 
future of the African race in this country. ... I would not 
be willing to deprive any man, who is qualified under existing 
laws to vote, of the exercise of that privilege in the future; 
but I believe it would be wise to regulate the qualifications of 
those who are to become voters hereafter by rules of universal 
application. 1 

On the next day the governor's complaint about the pres- 
ence of unpardoned rebels in the convention bore fruit in a 
resolution by E. J. Davis to the effect that no person ex- 
cepted from the amnesty should be entitled to a seat until 
pardoned. Ex-Governor Henderson offered a substitute 
referring all credentials to the committee on privileges and 
elections, and the matter was finally referred to that com- 
mittee. On the next day the committee called before it the 
delegates whose seats were thus in question, Runnels, Waul, 
Whitfield, and Ireland, and after consideration reported that 
these had all made application for special pardon and that 
the applications had been endorsed by the governor. A re- 
solution was finally passed allowing them to retain their 
seats pending the action of the President. 2 

The convention got down to work very slowly. It had 
been in session a full week before any move at all was made 
with respect to the secession ordinance. It was still four 
days later before the abolition of slavery was brought up 
for discussion. In fact as much time was taken up with the 
mere preliminaries of organization as had been required for 

1 See Convention Journal, pp. 16-27. 

2 Ibid., pp. 29, 32, 42, 48. 



94 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[94 



the complete work of any of the state conventions of the 
previous summer. 1 

On February 13th Latimer, of Red River County, intro- 
duced an ordinance on the first serious question with which 
the delegates were called upon to deal, the disposition of the 
ordinance of secession. There proved to be a great variety 
of opinions as to its character, and upon the subject party 
lines came to be closely drawn. The chief point at issue 
was whether the secession ordinance was null and void 
from the beginning, or became null and void as a result of 
the war. The first view was based upon the principle that 
there never was such a thing as a " right of secession " ; the 
second view implied that the right of secession had been at 
least an open legal question until the war had settled it. 
Latimer's ordinance simply declared null and void and of no 
effect from the beginning the ordinance of secession and all 

1 Mr. Ben C. Truman, who as correspondent of the New York Times 
and confidential agent of President Johnson toured the South and 
attended all the conventions, and who was certainly one of the keen- 
est and sanest observers of conditions everywhere, seems for a time 
to have lost all patience with the dilatory progress of the Texans. 
In the Times of March 1 1 he said : " The convention spends all its 
time electioneering for the United States Senate. It is a weak set." 
And he appended this sarcastic summary of its work up to that time: 

" 1st day. Convention met and adjourned without doing a thing. 

2nd day. Met and elected president and clerk. Adjourned. 

3rd day. Met and elected more officers. Adjourned. 

4th day. Met and refused to take the oath. Adjourned. 

5th day. Met and reconsidered their refusal to take the oath and 
took it. Adjourned. 

7th day. Met and argued whether the convention should do some- 
thing or nothing. Adjourned. 

8th day. Ditto. 

9th day. Ditto. 

10th day. Ditto. 

nth day. Agreed to do something. Adjourned. 
12th day. Did nothing. Adjourned." 



95] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 95 

the other acts of the convention of 1861. Hancock proposed 
a substitute to the effect that the ordinance had been " in 
legal contemplation void, being a revolutionary measure, 
and subject to the general principles of revolutions." 1 This 
was a clever compromise, but suited neither side. On the 
next day Henderson offered an ordinance declaring that, 
inasmuch as the government of the United States " by the 
exercise of its power " had determined that no state had 
the constitutional right to secede, the said ordinance was 
repealed. 2 Later, Reeves wished simply to accept the de- 
cision of the war and, in order to restore the state to its 
former relations to the Federal government, merely to re- 
nounce the doctrine as asserted in the aforesaid ordinance 
of secession. 3 Judge Frazier was able to evolve another in- 
terpretation : that the inhabitants of Texas were a conquered 
people, governed by the laws of war and of nations, by 
which alone the United States government was restrained, 
and that these laws required no more of the people than 
that they should accept the will of the conqueror ; and hence 
it was " not necessary to repeal, annul, or declare null and 
void that ordinance, since the surrender of the South had 
settled the question." 4 X. B. Saunders introduced an ordi- 
nance to the same effect as Latimer's, declaring the ordi- 
nance of secession and all other acts of the secession con- 
vention null and void ab initio. This was the position of 
the staunch unionists. When the committee on the condi- 
tion of the state reported, its ordinance was one that simply 
acknowledged the supremacy of the Constitution of the 
United States and declared the troublesome act " annulled 
and of no further effect." 5 The minority report of this 

1 Convention Journal, p. 35. 2 Ibid., p. 38. 

8 Ibid., p. 44. 4 Ibid., pp. 47-48. 

8 Ibid., p. 62. 



96 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[ 9 6 



committee asserted that, as no warrant for the act of seces- 
sion could be found in the constitution, which was the 
supreme law of the land, it must have been a nullity from 
the beginning ; and even viewing it as a revolutionary meas- 
ure, the result of the struggle forced the same conclusion, 
for " abortive attempts at revolution never impress any 
changes upon the fundamental laws of the government." 
Moreover, the minority argued, the report of the majority 
virtually asserted that the secession ordinance had a legal 
existence up to the present time and was in actual force — 
a theory in every way untenable. The minority therefore 
reported an ab initio ordinance. 1 

The real fight over this question began on March 9th and 
extended over three days. The ab initio men, or " radicals," 
as they were beginning to be called, struggled hard to sub- 
stitute some form of the minority report for that of the 
majority. Not quite equal in numbers to their opponents, 
they failed in this, and then resorted to obstructive tactics. 
Finally, the conservatives by sheer strength pushed through 
to engrossment, on the afternoon of the 12th of March, by 
a vote of 43 to 37, the ordinance finally adopted — acknowl- 
edging the supremacy of the Federal Constitution, declar- 
ing the act of secession null and void without direct refer- 
ence to its initial status, and distinctly renouncing the right 
previously claimed by Texas to secede from the Union. 2 

The radicals were not at first disposed to accept their 
defeat gracefully. At a caucus of the minority held that 
night in the office of the secretary of state, Hancock strongly 
urged the withdrawal of the ab initio men, for the purpose 
of breaking the quorum and dissolving the convention in 

1 Convention Journal, pp. 79-81. 

2 Ibid., pp. 146-165 ; Gammel, Laws of Texas, V, p. 887. 



97] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 97 

order that a new one might be called. However, Governor 
Hamilton would not promise to call another one at once, 
and there was nothing for the minority to do but to return 
to their seats. 1 Flake's Bulletin, a radical weekly paper of 
Galveston, declared as late as March 21st that the conven- 
tion had " shown its hand by passing an emasculated ordi- 
nance known to be unsatisfactory to Union men every- 
where"; that the majority had proved itself disloyal; that 
" the sole intent and meaning of this ordinance was to gain 
a rapid entrance into the national councils in order to renew 
the struggle and fight the rebellion over again " ; and it 
suggested that as the majority was " still wedded, like 
Ephraim, to its idols," it might yet " become the duty of the 
loyal minority to withdraw from the convention." 

It had been widely asserted by the radicals that nothing 
less than a distinct admission of the original illegality of the 
attempted secession would satisfy President Johnson and 
the North, and that without such an admission the new 
state government would not be recognized; and indeed the 
Houston Tri-Weekly Telegraph, the ablest of the conser- 
vative papers, had pointed out in November that the result 
of the fall elections in the North meant that the issues of 
the war had not been abandoned by the South in terms 
sufficiently decisive, and that to repeal the ordinance would 
not be enough : " if it was ever valid it still is ; . . . the 
whole idea of reserved state sovereignty and of partnership 
in the government must be expelled from the system for- 
ever." On the other hand it could hardly have been ex- 
pected that the secession leaders would be willing to violate 

1 See letter of H. Ledbetter in Flake's Weekly Bulletin, May 23, 
1866. The names of those at the caucus and absent from the con- 
vention are given in the Convention Journal, p. 165. 



98 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS j^g 

their records of " political consistency " ;* while there were 
many others who refused to " brand as traitors their fathers, 
brothers, and sons who had died in battle for the South." 2 
In commenting on the action of the convention, the Tele- 
graph of March 17th said: 

They [the radicals] desired the convention should say that 
secession or revolution was a crime in itself, and consequently 
void. It was understood that this significance should attach 
to the words " null and void, ab initio." The idea attached to 
the ordinance passed is that the war has decided that it was 
null and void ab initio. On this difference the issue is raised. 
It is whether the people in their sovereign capacity shall de- 
clare that they did wrong knowingly and willingly in 1861 in 
attempting secession. 

Flake's Bulletin, in commenting on the foregoing, said : 

The difference in position is defined with unusual clearness 
and great candor. . . . We do certainly desire that the ordi- 
nance of secession be declared a wrong knowingly forced upon 
the people of Texas by their political leaders. We contend 
that rebellion was wrong, that it was, in the theological lan- 
guage, original sin, that it was malum in se, and that the next 
rebellion will be just like it, wrong from the beginning. 

The most important subject that engaged the attention of 

1 Governor Hamilton is quoted as saying about this time : "After all, 
our people are doing about as well as a reasonable man ought to ex- 
pect. Politicians must have their ' explanations ' and their ' records ' ; 
they must be allowed to retreat gracefully and to fall gently; but the 
vast majority of them are all right at heart. They must have time." 
Truman to Johnson, MS. in Johnson Papers; see also in Senate Exec. 
Docs., vol. ii, no. 43, 1st. sess., 39th Cong. 

2 See speech of John Ireland in Tri-Weekly State Gazette, March 20, 
1866. 



99] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 99 

the convention was the status to be given the negro. There 
was practical unanimity of opinion in regard to the abolition 
of slavery. All were now agreed that the institution had 
ceased to exist, for the Thirteenth Amendment had been 
ratified and declared in force in December; neither was 
there any division of opinion concerning the right of the 
freedmen to be secure in person and property. There was 
considerable debate upon the question of admitting negro 
testimony in the courts. The majority of the members were 
willing to admit such testimony in any case, civil or crimi- 
nal, involving a right of, or injury to, any negro in person or 
property; but there was a large and active minority, chiefly 
the political friends of Hamilton, that strongly urged the 
admission of negro testimony in all cases under the same 
rules that governed the testimony of the whites. 1 The latter 
proposition was repugnant to popular sensibilities because 
it was regarded as the first step toward social equality, and 
this was the chief argument against it; though it was also 
strongly urged that if the negro were allowed to testify 
only in cases affecting the negro, he was legally placed upon 
a better foundation than the white man, since he would be 
able to subpoena witnesses from both whites and blacks, 
while the white man, where no negro was involved, could 
summon only those of his own color. 2 The radicals an- 
swered that a liberal policy was expected, nay, demanded 
both by the government at Washington and by Northern 
sentiment, and would be prerequisite to readmission to the 
national councils; and furthermore, it was pointed out that 
as long as the freedmen labored under any disabilities in the 

1 Strangely enough, Frazier, " the bitter rebel," as Truman calls him, 
was among the advocates of this measure. See the Journal, p. 97. 

2 Truman to Johnson, MS. in Johnson Papers; also in Sen. Exec. 
Docs., vol. ii, no. 43, 1st sess., 39th Cong. 



IOO 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[ioo 



civil courts there was no prospect of a release from the an- 
noyance of the Freedmen's Bureau. 

The article first reported by Hancock from the com- 
mittee on general provisions, February 17th, provided that 
slavery should not exist in the state and that freedmen 
should be secure in all rights of person and property, and 
should not be prohibited from testifying in any case affect- 
ing one of their own color. A number of amendments were 
offered to this section defining the rights of freedmen in the 
courts; but despite the efforts of a few to restrict these 
rights more narrowly, and of a strong minority to extend 
them, the provision went through essentially unchanged. 
As finally adopted, the ordinance, which became Article 
VIII of the Constitution, declared that, African slavery 
having been terminated by the United States government 
by force of arms and its re-establishment prohibited by an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, neither 
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment 
for crime, whereof the party should have been duly con- 
victed, should exist within the state. Negroes were to be 
protected in their rights of person and property; to have 
the right to sue and be sued, to contract and be contracted 
with, to acquire and transmit property; and all criminal 
prosecutions against them were to be conducted in the same 
manner and with the same penalties as in the case of whites. 
They were allowed to testify orally in any case, civil or 
criminal, involving the right of, injury to, or crime against, 
any of their own race in person or property, under the same 
rules of evidence that were applicable to the white race; 
and the legislature was empowered to authorize them to 
testify as witnesses in all other cases, under such regulations 
as should be prescribed, " as to facts hereafter occurring." 1 

1 See Gammel, Laws of Texas, vol. v, p. 881. 



IOl] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 IQ1 

This last clause, if not distinctly a concession to the minor- 
ity, at least wisely left the matter open for determination 
according to future developments. Whether the Texans 
were more liberal in this respect than the delegates to the 
other state conventions or whether they felt themselves 
driven to this position by the Civil Rights Bill then under 
consideration in Congress, is not easily apparent. Truman 
thought them freely inclined to favor the negro; 1 and it 
was evident that few of them believed that the bill could 
pass over the President's veto. Moreover, the most of 
them, including many that had favored the most liberal 
policy toward the negro, were very hostile to that bill be- 
cause it invaded a field which they regarded as being ex- 
clusively under the jurisdiction of the states. 

The idea of negro suffrage found little favor on any side. 
Degener offered a long minority report from the committee 
on legislative department in advocacy of unrestricted suf- 
frage, but he stood practically alone. Few, even of those 
who did not oppose it, would openly advocate it. 2 On the 
whole, Texas had granted the freedmen more civil rights 
than had any other southern state, though she had not gone 
as far as it was understood that President Johnson desired. 
Still, it was asserted by the radicals, now becoming identi- 
fied with the anti-Johnson party, that it was the President's 
veto of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill during this time that 

1 Truman to Johnson in Sen. Exec. Docs., vol. ii, no. 43, 1st sess., 
39th Cong. ; also his testimony before the Reconstruction Committee in 
House Com. Reports, vol. ii, part iv, p. 137, 1st sess., 39th Cong. 

2 Ben C. Truman testified before the Reconstruction Committee that 
there were seven men in the convention who favored negro suffrage 
and that four voted for it. See House Com. Reports, vol. ii, part iv, 
pp. 136, 137, 1st sess., 39th Cong. 



102 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ I02 

had encouraged the majority to refuse the negro wider 
privileges. 1 

The question of the public debt presented a peculiar dif- 
ficulty. There was no hesitation in repudiating the war 
debt, but the third section of the ordinance reported by the 
committee on finance repudiated the entire civil debt in- 
curred between January 28, 1861, and August 5, 1865. 2 On 
this point there was a sharp debate, but the majority in its 
favor, comprising men of both parties, was so strong that 
obstructive tactics availed little; and with slight modifica- 
tions the ordinance was passed on March 15th. The reasons 
advanced for repudiating the civil debt were: (1) that the 
treasury warrants, comprising the greater part of it, had 
been issued in plain violation of the constitution of 1845, 
which must be regarded as still in force; 3 (2) the state 
authorities had recklessly piled up a debt of nearly eight and 
a half millions of dollars, and to impose upon the state the 
obligation to carry so heavy a burden would not only drive 
away immigration but would bankrupt the state; (3) that 
nearly all of these warrants had found their way into the 
hands of the " gang of heartless stay-at-home speculators " 4 
who had shirked their duty during the war, and it would be 
unfair to tax for their benefit the poverty-stricken soldiers 
in the ranks; (4) that a large amount of the debt had been 
issued to " regulators " for hunting down and executing 
without trial loyal citizens of the United States then resi- 

1 Wm. Alexander to Alonzo Sherwood, MS. in Johnson Papers. 

2 Convention Journal, p. 117. 

8 Article VII, Section 8, of that constitution provided that " in no 
case shall the legislature have the power to issue treasury warrants, 
treasury notes, or paper of any description intended to circulate as 
money." 

*J. K. Bumpass in State Gazette, quoted in San Antonio Daily 
Herald, April 3, 1866. 



103] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 

dent in Texas. 1 How much support each one of these argu- 
ments contributed to the measure it would be difficult to 
determine ; but, combining strong legal and partisan reasons, 
they presented an array that was overwhelming. This act 
was attacked by the press, however, with perhaps more 
bitterness than all the other measures together. Certain of 
the conservative journals in particular exhibited a resent- 
ment that was most acrid. 2 The San Antonio Herald, which 
had shown some anxiety on this point previous to the con- 
vention, asserted that the warrants of the state had noth- 
ing on their face to show that they were in any way con- 
nected with the rebellion; that most of the debt was for 
purely civil services and that the rest was for the defense of 
the frontier against the Indians. The State Gazette de- 
clared the repudiation an act of bad faith, one that had not 
been required by the Federal government, and had not been 
adopted in the other states of the South that had suffered far 
worse during the war than had Texas. 

Although these important measures concerning secession, 
the freedmen, and the war debt were the only ones that the 
convention had been specifically required to take up, there 
were other matters that naturally came up for consideration. 
An ordinance of great importance was one recognizing cer- 
tain acts of the government de facto as it existed during the 
war. When the Federals first took control of the state all 
the acts of the state government subsequent to the ordinance 
of secession were declared invalid. This, however, was 
felt to work an unnecessary hardship in many cases, and 

1 For the arguments here presented in favor of this ordinance I am 
indebted to the Hon. X. B. Saunders of Belton, Texas, who was a 
member of the convention. 

2 It was asserted at the time that several held in their possession 
large amounts of the now worthless state warrants. 



104 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ I04 

Governor Hamilton had gradually adopted the policy of 
recognizing as valid such acts and laws as were not in con- 
flict with the laws of the United States. It was generally 
felt to be absolutely necessary for the peace and well being 
of society that the private-law ctatus of citizens sholud not 
be disturbed by reason of the war. Under the authority 
of the state government during the war property had been 
transferred; estates administered; contracts entered into; 
business relations formed; courts held, judgments rendered, 
and decrees executed; marriage relations entered into and 
children born. To have disturbed or destroyed the legiti- 
macy of all these acts would have been to undermine and 
destroy the very foundations upon which depended the sta- 
bility of society. Such a course could have subserved no 
useful purpose in state policy, for these acts would not be 
construed as having been " in aid of the rebellion." Conse- 
quently, long before the convention was called, the pro- 
visional authorities had made and recognized a distinction 
between acts in aid and support of the rebellion and those 
which had been primarily for the purpose of regulating the 
private relations of the people and without any direct rela- 
tion to the war. But though this distinction was already 
recognized and acted upon, it was necessary for the con- 
vention to embody it in the organic law of the land in order 
to insure the permanence of the principle. The ordinance 
passed on the subject was a sort of omnibus bill, covering 
a wide range of related subjects. All laws and parts of 
laws enacted by the legislature subsequent to the ist of Feb- 
ruary, 1 86 1, and not in conflict with the constitution and 
laws of the United States, nor with the constitution of 
Texas as it was prior to that date, nor in conflict with the 
proclamations of the provisional governor, were declared to 
be in full force as laws of the state ; and all acts of the differ- 



I0 5] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 lo $ 

ent officers of the state, executive, legislative, and judicial, 
done in compliance with the laws not in conflict as above 
stated, were declared in force, unless annulled by act of the 
convention. All acts of the secession convention were an- 
nulled. The acts of the provisional government and its offi- 
cers were declared valid. Furthermore, it was provided that 
no suit or prosecution should be maintained or recovery had 
against any agent, bailee, executor, administrator, or trustee, 
who had been compelled to deliver up property or money held 
by them to Confederate States' receivers. No person was 
to be sued or prosecuted for any action done in compliance 
with superior orders under Confederate authority. 1 Per- 
sons absent from Texas during the war, against whom any 
judgment was rendered in a civil suit during such absence, 
were allowed two years from April 1, 1866, in which to re- 
open and set aside such judgment, with the effect to set 
aside any sale or disposition of any property affected. 2 
A number of minor matters are worthy of passing notice. 

1 This part of the ordinance was attacked by Governor Hamilton 
in a violent and angry speech before the convention on March 31. 
He said : " The convention have passed a measure legislating whole- 
sale robbery and murder throughout the land. A measure of peace ! 
Does it bring peace to the bereaved hearts made desolate by such deeds ? 
... I imagine the friends of this resolution had in their minds cer- 
tain gentlemen here and there who were receivers under the Con- 
federate States' laws. . . . The loyal citizens were robbed, and now 
because these receivers acted under authority, they must be protected 
and you imagine this convention is powerful enough to protect them. 
They will and shall be called to account. There is but one cure. They 
must leave this country or account for it just as sure as the sun is 
shining in Heaven above us. . . . You [the members] have an account 
to settle before the people yet. You have not done with this. You 
shall confront them, and shall answer to them, and if God spares my 
life, I pledge myself to go before the people of the state and draw 
these men up and make them answer." See Southern Intelligencer, 
May 24, 1866. 

2 See Gammel, Laws of Texas, V, pp. 895-898. 



106 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ io 6 

Certain amendments were added to the constitution — that 
of 1845 — lengthening the terms of most state officers to 
four years and increasing the salaries. Some changes were 
made in the form and jurisdiction of the courts with a view 
to greater efficiency. The governor was requested to peti- 
tion the President for more adequate frontier protection. 
An ordinance was passed on the last day providing for a 
possible division of the state, the vote standing 31 to 17. 1 
One of the last acts of the convention was the appointment 
of four delegates who were to proceed to Washington and 
lay before the President the result of their deliberations and 
to " endeavor to impress upon the national authorities the 
loyal and pacific disposition of the people of Texas." On 
several occasions the majority had attempted to get through 
resolutions endorsing President Johnson's policy, but action 
was delayed until the last minute, when the measure failed 
for want of a quorum. 

The action of the convention in passing the ordinances 
concerning secession, the freedmen, and the debt was to be 
regarded as final, but the amendments to the constitution 
were to be voted upon at the first general election for state, 
district, and county officers, which was fixed for June. The 
new state government was to be inaugurated in August. 

The convention adjourned April 2d, after a session of 
eight weeks. By this time the two parties, radical and con- 
servative, which had been in evidence almost from the first, 
had become something more nearly approaching definite 
organizations. The acts of the convention were looked 
upon as being chiefly the work of the conservatives, and 
were in consequence bitterly attacked by the radical news- 

1 The demand for separation was especially strong in the western 
part of the state where the Union sentiment had been very strong and 
where there were a great many Germans. 



loy] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1866 lQ y 

papers, especially by the Southern Intelligencer, which had 
become the recognized organ of the radicals. The Intelli- 
gencer declared that the convention had done things it 
ought not to have done and had left undone the things that 
it ought to have done. It had failed to declare secession 
null and void from the beginning ; only a portion of the civil 
rights had been conceded to the f reedmen ; and it had failed 
to submit all its ordinances to the people for ratification. 
Nor were the conservative papers altogether pleased with 
the last days of the session, and at first they did not attempt 
to conceal their dissatisfaction. Each party in the conven- 
tion had begun maneuvering in anticipation of the June 
elections, and, in haste to get an early start in the canvass 
and unwilling to wait for a state nominating convention, 
each had resorted to the old expedient of a caucus nomina- 
tion. The San Antonio Herald, the Austin State Gazette, 
and the Houston Telegraph joined in denouncing this cau- 
cus nomination, which, taken with the refusal to submit 
certain of the ordinances to the people, they regarded as 
proof that the delegates cared only to grab all the orifices 
and considered this as more important than the welfare of 
the state. Some of these papers, too, were still smarting 
over the repudiation of the civil debt. But this did not last 
long ; the conservatives were soon forced by the pressure of 
party strife to accept and defend the work of the convention 
and to support the caucus-made nominees of their faction. 



CHAPTER VI 



The Restoration of State Government 

i. The State Elections of 1866 

The last day of the constitutional convention had been 
given over largely to preparations for the approaching elec- 
tions. About two weeks before adjournment a caucus of 
the radicals had tendered to Hamilton the nomination for 
the governorship, which he declined. Thereupon a new 
ticket, headed by ex-Governor E. M. Pease and B. H. Ep- 
person, was made out and published with a declaration of 
the principles for which this party had contended in the 
convention. Their opponents, after some hesitation on the 
part of the ultra-secessionists, centered upon Throckmorton, 
president of the convention, and Geo. W. Jones, delegate 
from Bastrop in the same body. In a public letter, April 
2d, announcing their candidates, the conservatives endorsed 
the President's policy for the restoration of the state gov- 
ernments, asserted their opposition to the negro-political- 
equality policy of the radicals in Congress, and declared 
that the Texas radicals were preparing " to aid and abet 
Stevens, Sumner, and Phillips ... in the establishment of 
a consolidated, despotic government. ,, 1 The tickets thus 
put out did not, however, remain intact. Epperson, al- 
though always a strong Union man, refused to align himself 
with the radicals and was finally replaced by Lindsay; 
while several of the conservative nominees either withdrew 



1 Southern Intelligencer, April 19, 1866. 
to8 [108 



IQ 9] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT io ^ 

or declined to run. Changes continued to be made in both 
tickets up to the eve of the election. 

From the outset the canvass was bitter. The radicals, 
their defeats in the convention still rankling, charged that 
their opponents were unwilling to abide by the true results 
of the war ; that they refused even to accept the President's 
policy which they professed to endorse and support — in 
proof of which it was pointed out that the convention had 
fallen short of the President's recommendations; in fact, 
that they were as rebellious as in 1861 ; and that their real 
object was to get possession of the state offices and once 
more work into control of the national government in order 
to establish there the principles overthrown in the " rebel- 
lion," or failing in that, to reopen the " rebellion " at a con- 
venient opportunity, and meanwhile to drive all Union men 
out of the state and nullify the emancipation of the negroes. 1 
On the other hand, it was charged upon the radicals that, 
being disappointed, first in the hope of prolonging the provi- 
sional government indefinitely, and next in securing control 
of the convention, and having little chance of securing a 
new lease of power at the coming election, they were prepar- 
ing to desert President Johnson whom they still professed 
to admire and endorse, and to align themselves with the 
ultra-radical element in Congress in its evident intention of 
re-establishing military rule over the South and enforcing 
political equality between whites and negroes. While the 
conservatives were stigmatized as " disloyal " and " rebel- 
lious " because of their hostility to the Civil Rights and 
Freedmen's Bureau Acts, they accused their antagonists of 
being the real disunionists because they supported the " de- 
structive, unconstitutional legislation " of Congress and 

1 See files of Flake's Bulletin, San Antonio Express, and Southern 
Intelligencer (radical papers) for April, May, and June, 1866. 



no 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[no 



favored delay in the restoration of the state to its normal 
place in the Union. 

Probably there was as much truth in these charges as in 
those of the average heated political campaign. It is cer- 
tainly true that the conservatives were unwilling to concede 
more changes in the characters and relations of the state 
and Federal governments than they would be obliged to, 
and it seems true that their admiration of the President at 
this time was closely related to, and in direct proportion to, 
their fears of the Congressional radicals; but to confuse 
their hatred of the latter with their attitude toward the gov- 
ernment, or to assert that desire for political power and 
influence was tantamount to rebellion, or that they were 
preparing a crusade against Union men and a renewal 
ot rebellion, was the sheerest nonsense, and beyond the 
threats of a few braggarts and ruffians there seems to have 
been no foundation for the charge. Surely nothing disloyal 
could be found in the utterances of their candidate, Throck- 
morton. In the course of one of his speeches, while dis- 
cussing the relations of the people to the government, he 
said : 

The President may be defeated in his policy; other laws 
equally as objectionable as the civil rights statute may be en- 
acted; the Northern people may refuse to believe in our sin- 
cerity and loyalty; we may be kept out of the halls of legis- 
lation and yet be required to meet our portion of the public 
burdens ; . . . We may continue to be misrepresented and tra- 
duced ; troops may be quartered among us where there is pro- 
found peace and the frontier remain unprotected. . . . But if 
these things happen it is our duty to bear them patiently. 
Whatever law is passed, however odious it may be, it should 
be obeyed by us as long as it the law of the land. Let us by 
our conduct and example sustain the majesty and supremacy 
of the law. 1 

1 Clipping from Houston Telegraph, found in Johnson Papers. 



Ill] 



RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT 



III 



Nor is it entirely true that the radicals had as yet embraced 
all of the doctrines of Thaddeus Stevens or of Wendell 
Phillips. Pease declared that he was opposed to complete 
negro suffrage because the blacks were not intelligent 
enough to vote; but, if the United States government should 
require it, he would be willing to concede the suffrage to 
such negroes as could read and write understanding^ rather 
than have Texas remain under provisional government, 
and he claimed that this was the view of the majority of his 
party. 1 Nevertheless, it soon became apparent that that 
party was really in alliance with the enemies of the Presi- 
dent. As the conservatives had found a natural ally in Mr. 
Johnson, their opponents had been brought more and more 
into dependence upon the Congressional radicals; and, as 
every day it became more evident that the conservatives 
would carry the state, while in the North the ultimate de- 
cision in the great problem before the nation was to be with 
Congress rather than the President, an alliance with Con- 
gress offered the radicals advantages of an exceedingly 
seductive character. Long before the date of the election 
the alliance was made known. Governor Hamilton's attor- 
ney-general, Alexander, had written to the leaders in Wash- 
ington beseeching them to delay restoration as long as pos- 
sible, and the correspondence found its way into the papers. 8 
Hamilton himself, after a brief but stormy campaign tour, 
turned over the duties of his office to Bell, the secretary of 
state, and hurried north to enlist in the campaign against 
the President, where his violent denunciations of both John- 
son and the people of Texas won him fame in the North and 
increased hatred in his own state. Pease had been personally 
popular and he conducted his campaign in the state with 

1 San Antonio Express, May 24, 1866. 

2 Weekly State Gazette, May 12, 1866. 



112 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ II2 

characteristic moderation; but the anti-radical feeling was 
too strong, and the conservatives were overwhelmingly 
victorious in the elections. The Throckmorton ticket was 
elected by an immense majority, 49,277 to 12,168 votes. 
At the same time the amendments to the constitution were 
ratified by 28,119 to 23,400 votes. This comparatively 
small majority may have been due to the fact that the gen- 
eral increase provided for in the salaries of state officials 
was very unpopular. 

2. Inauguration of the New Government 

As soon as it was positively known that the conservative 
ticket was elected, the secretary of state, Judge Bell, tele- 
graphed President Johnson for instructions, expressing the 
opinion that the provisional officers should retain control 
until the President should consent to the installation of those 
newly elected. His course received the approval of Mr. 
Johnson, who, however, gave no immediate indication of 
the action he expected to take. In the meantime it was 
rumored that the conservatives would not be allowed to 
take possession of the state offices, and that the provisional 
government would be continued. A number of the radicals 
had gone North and it was feared that their representations 
as to the disloyalty of the victorious party might have a dis- 
quieting effect upon the government at Washington. Pease 
denied that there was any truth in the rumor, but a number 
of anxious dispatches were sent by Throckmorton and his 
friends to assure Mr. Johnson that the newly-elected offi- 
cials were " alike the friends of the President's policy and 
lovers of the Union of the states." 1 

1 Throckmorton, John Hancock, Burford, Buckley to Johnson, MSS. 
in lohnson Papers. See also Tri-Weekly Telegraph, July 12, 1866; 
Southern Intelligencer, July 19, 1866. 



1 1 3 ] RESTORA TION OF ST A TE GO VERNMENT + 1 3 

The Eleventh Legislature assembled at Austin on August 
6th. The votes for governor were counted and Throck- 
morton was declared duly elected; and, although no word 
had come from Washington, arrangements were made for 
the inauguration. On the morning of August 9th, the gov- 
ernor and lieutenant-governor were inaugurated in the 
presence of the two houses of the legislature, the officers of 
the provisional government, several officers of the United 
States army, and a large concourse of citizens. Four days 
later a telegram was received from the President by the pro- 
visional secretary of state, ordering that the care and con- 
duct of affairs in Texas be turned over to the constituted 
authorities chosen by the people. Governor Throckmorton 
and his subordinates at once took possession unopposed and 
entered upon the discharge of their duties. The military 
authorities in the state received orders to render the same 
support to the newly-organized authorities as had been af- 
forded to the provisional government. On August 20th 
President Johnson issued a proclamation declaring that the 
insurrection in Texas was at an end, and that peace, order, 
tranquillity, and civil authority existed throughout the whole 
of the United States. 1 

Nevertheless, the outlook for the new state government 
was not auspicious. In his inaugural address the governor 
described the situation in graphic language : 

At a time like the present, when we have just emerged from 
the most terrible conflict known to modern times, with homes 
made dreary and desolate by the heavy hand of war ; the 
people impoverished, and groaning under public and private 
debts; the great industrial energies of our country sadly de- 
pressed; occupying in some respects the position of a state 
of the Federal Union, and in others the condition of a con- 

1 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VI, 434-438. 



H4 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



quered province exercising only such privileges as the con- 
queror in his wisdom and mercy may allow ; the loyalty of the 
people to the general government doubted; their integrity 
questioned; their holiest aspirations for peace and restoration 
disbelieved, maligned and traduced; with a constant misappre- 
hension of their most innocent actions and intentions ; with a 
frontier many hundreds of miles in extent being desolated by 
a murderous and powerful enemy, our devoted frontiersmen 
filling bloody graves, their property given to the flames or 
carried off as booty, their little ones murdered, their wives 
and daughters carried into a captivity more terrible than 
death, and reserved for tortures such as savage cruelty and 
lust alone can inflict; unprotected by the government we sup- 
port, with troops quartered in the interior where there is peace 
and quiet; unwilling to send armed citizens to defend the 
suffering border, for fear of arousing unjust suspicions as to 
the motive ; with a heavy debt created before the late war, and 
an empty treasury; with an absolute necessity for a change 
in the laws to adapt ourselves to the new order of things, and 
embarrassments in every part of our internal affairs, . . . the 
surroundings are uninviting, the future appears inauspicious. 1 

3. The Eleventh Legislature 

Comparatively few members of the convention returned 
to the legislature. Many of the conservatives from the 
earlier body had been elected to various state offices, while 
the radicals had been retired to private life. Only a few of 
the latter, chiefly from the German counties in the south- 
west, were successful in the elections, and the membership 
of the legislature, therefore, was overwhelmingly conser- 
vative. But now that the power of the radicals was re- 
moved, the discord in the conservative ranks at once became 
apparent. The recent alliance between the " conservative 

1 House Journal, Eleventh Legislature, 19. 



115] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT II5 

Unionists," headed by the governor, and the secessionists 
had never been more than a manage de convenance, and 
neither party was willing to yield to the other the control 
of the state. In the organization of the House the seces- 
sionists were defeated in the selection of the Speaker, Nat 
M. Burford, of Dallas county, being elected over Ashbel 
Smith, of Harris county, by 39 to 30 votes. 

Of the many tasks which confronted the legislature, the 
one which demanded the most careful handling was the 
selection of two United States senators, and it was precisely 
in this that the conservative party laid itself open to the 
attack of its enemies. Of the eight or ten candidates whose 
names were submitted, four were clearly in the lead. These 
were O. M. Roberts, David G. Burnet, B. H. Epperson, 
and John Hancock. According to agreement one was to be 
chosen from eastern Texas, the other from the western part 
of the state. Hancock and Epperson had both been Union 
men throughout the war, 1 but since the adjournment of the 
convention they had acted with the conservatives. Roberts 
had been one of the most prominent secession leaders in the 
state and was universally regarded as the candidate of that 
element. Judge Burnet, formerly president of the Republic 
of Texas, had also been a secessionist, but because of his 
advanced age had for many years taken no active part in 
political affairs. The two houses met in joint session on 
August 2 1 st for the election of senators. There had been 
some rumors of an alliance between the forces of John Han- 
cock and Roberts, but if such an arrangement was ever 
made it had broken down. 2 The candidates from the west- 

1 Epperson, however, had served in the Confederate Congress, while 
Hancock had remained in retirement. 

2 D. M. Short to O. M. Roberts, August 24, 1866, MS. in Roberts 
Papers. 



Il6 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ IX 6 

ern district were Judge Burnet, John Hancock, and ex-Gov- 
ernor Pease, lately defeated for the governorship. Burnet 
was elected on the first ballot, the vote standing 65 for 
Burnet, 43 for Hancock, and 7 for Pease. 1 

Angered at the attitude of the secessionists, Hancock's 
followers went in a body to the support of Epperson against 
Roberts. The next ballot stood, Roberts 30, Epperson 43, 
with 41 more votes scattered among five other candidates. 
It was not until the thirteenth ballot two days later that 
Roberts received a majority, 61 to 49, and was declared 
elected. 2 The contest was not fought out entirely upon 
factional lines, but sufficiently so as to emphasize the strained 
relations between the " Union conservatives " and the orig- 
inal secessionists. 3 Thanks, however, to the common fear 
of the Northern radicals, they never came to the breaking- 
point. 

As might have been expected, the election of two uncom- 
promising secessionists, neither of whom was able to take 
the test oath, 4 only confirmed the Northern mind in its sus- 

1 House Journal, Eleventh Legislature, 1 19. 

2 Ibid., 1 19-139. 

3 Short to Roberts, Roberts Papers. 

4 The " test oath " or " iron-clad oath " was required of all officials 
of the United States according to Act of Congress, July 2, 1862. It 
was as follows : 

"I, (A. B.), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never 
voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a 
citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, 
counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility 
thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to 
exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or 
pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not 
yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, 
power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical 
thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my 



Il-r] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT lT y 

picions of Texas " loyalty ". Flake's Bulletin expressed the 
opinion that Hancock's defeat was due to " his ability to 
take the test oath/' and added : " It is clear that the legis- 
lature does not want its senators admitted. ... It has 
closed the doors of Congress against the representatives of 
Texas." The Houston Telegraph confessed that " this elec- 
tion will be a tremendous weapon in the hands of A. J. 
Hamilton and the radicals in the coming fall elections. It 
is an awkward response to the utterances and actions of the 
Philadelphia convention." 1 However, the Houston Journal 
boldly declared that it was " a simple indication that for the 
restoration of the Union the test oath must be repealed. 
The South loves its soldiers and will not forget them or ad- 
mit that the ' lost cause ' had in it any element of treason." 

The senators-elect proceeded to Washington, where they 
were joined later by three of the four representatives elected 
in the fall, Geo. W. Chilton, B. H. Epperson, and A. M. 
Branch. 2 Not only were their seats refused to them, but 
their credentials were ignored and they were not welcome 
even in the lobbies. Thus the " accredited representatives of 
a sovereign state " were reduced to watch the doings of Con- 
knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of 
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ; that I 
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obliga- 
tion freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and 
that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on 
which I am about to enter, so help me God." U. S. Statutes at Large, 
XII, p. 502. 

1 The National Union Convention, composed of supporters of 
President Johnson's reconstruction policy, had demanded the ad- 
mission of the Southern representatives to Congress and had in- 
dignantly denied that the South was still disloyal. 

2 C. C. Herbert, from the Fourth Congressional District, remained 
in Texas. 



Il8 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ n 8 

gress from the galleries. 1 They found that they had been 
preceded at Washington by Hamilton, Pease, and other 
Texas radicals, who, in close alliance with the opponents of 
the President, were doing all in their power to defeat the 
recognition of the new state government and to substitute 
some form of Congressional control. 2 After attending to 
such business for their state as was possible in the executive 
departments, and after futile efforts to come to a definite un- 
derstanding with the President and his supporters upon a 
program to be pursued, the Texan delegation issued an ad- 
dress " to the Congress and People of the United States," 
setting forth their view of the rights of Texas in the Union 
and the condition of affairs in the state, 3 and then, with the 
exception of Epperson, returned home. 

In his first message to the legislature the governor sub- 
mitted the joint resolutions of Congress proposing a thir- 
teenth and a fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States. In regard to the first he offered no 
recommendation, on the ground that it had already been 
adopted by the requisite number of states and had been em- 
bodied in the constitution of Texas by the convention. 
With respect to the second, he expressed " unqualified dis- 
approval " of it as " impolitic, unwise, and unjust," and 
recommended its rejection. The two resolutions were re- 
ferred to the committee on federal relations, but no action 
was taken until two months later. The House committee 
in reporting on the Thirteenth Amendment stated that, in- 
asmuch as the people of Texas through their convention 

1 Roberts to Throckmorton, MS. in Executive Correspondence. See 
also " The Experiences of an Unrecognized Senator " in The Texas 
Historical Association Quarterly, XII, 145. 

2 " The Experiences of an Unrecognized Senator," op. ext., XII, 100, 
102-103. 

3 Ibid., 106- 1 19. 



II9 ] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT II9 

had already acknowledged the supremacy of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, of which the said amendment was 
an integral part, the legislature had no authority in the 
matter and any action on its part " would be surplusage if 
not intrusive." The committee asked and was allowed to 
be relieved of any further consideration of the measure. 1 
The Senate committee seems to have made no report on 
this subject. 

The report made on Article XIV by the House com- 
mittee through its chairman, Ashbel Smith, was an able 
and interesting document. It expressed very clearly the 
fears aroused by the program of the radicals, and stated 
succinctly the practical and constitutional grounds of South- 
ern opposition. In the first place, so the committee de- 
clared, the submission of the article was in itself a nullity, 
because, contrary to the plain intent of the constitution, the 
representatives of the states most concerned were denied 
participation in the Congress proposing it. Moreover, the 
article as submitted was clearly intended to deprive the 
states of certain rights and powers over their citizens that 
they had held without question since 1776, and to give to 
the Federal government authority that would be dan- 
gerous alike to the constitutional autonomy of the states 
and to the liberties of the people. Furthermore, it would 
degrade the governments and social institutions of the 
Southern states by enforcing wholesale negro suffrage along 
with a practical disfranchisement of the whites. It was 
dictated not by statesmanship, but by " passion and malig- 
nancy," and it required that the members of the legislature 
be the instruments of their own and of their people's de- 
gradation. The committee admitted that it was thoroughly 
aware of the dangers involved in rejecting the amendment: 

1 House Journal, Eleventh Legislature, 219, 493. 



120 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ I20 

for the radical leaders had threatened the complete prostra- 
tion of the state through the abrogation of its government, 
the establishment of martial law with a military governor, 
the confiscation of property and the granting of negro free- 
hold homesteads therefrom, the abrogation of Presidential 
pardons to be followed by trials before military commis- 
sions, the impeachment of the President and the establish- 
ment of a negro government for bringing Texas back into 
the Union. Yet refusing to yield to mere expediency when 
it meant the abandonment of principle, the committee would 
recommend the rejection of the article proposed. The rec- 
ommendation was sustained by a vote of 70 to 5. 1 The 
Senate committee made a similarly adverse report and was 
also sustained. 2 

The most interesting and important of the purely legis- 
lative work of the session was that dealing with the freed- 
men and labor. Reagan, from his home near Palestine, 
again issued a public letfeet,\to the governor this time, 3 call- 
ing attention to the prospective fulfilment of his prophecies 
in the Fort Warren letter, 4 and again urging a qualified 
suffrage and wider privileges in the courts for the freedmen, 
in order to ward off the attacks and forestall the plans of 
the Northern radicals. For the present, however, he had 
no following in his own party, and this letter only increased 
the irritation produced by the former one. Laws were 
passed on the subjects of apprenticeship, vagrancy, labor 
contracts, and the enticing away of laborers; and although 

1 For full report of the committee and the vote, see House lournal, 
Eleventh Legislature, 577-583. 

2 Senate Journal, Eleventh Legislature, 417. 

3 Reagan's Memoirs. 301. The original is in Executive Corres- 
pondence. 

* Supra, p. 83. 



I2l] 



RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT 



121 



no apparent distinction was made in their application as to 
whites and blacks, it is clear enough that they were intended 
solely for the regulation of negroes and negro labor. 

The labor situation had not cleared entirely, despite the 
energetic work of the Freedmen's Bureau during the winter 
and spring and the efforts of its officials to keep the freed- 
men at work during the crop-growing season. When paid 
a monthly cash wage, the negro usually preferred to spend 
it before going back to work; and, when offered better 
wages elsewhere, he had no hesitation in breaking a contract 
in order to accept. On May 15th, General Kiddoo, who 
had just succeeded General Gregory as assistant commis- 
sioner for Texas, found it necessary to issue a circular order 
forbidding the enticing of contract laborers from one em- 
ployer to another. The person thus inducing a freedman 
to leave his contract was to be fined from $100 to $500 and 
the laborer from $5 to $25. A fine of $50, moreover, could 
be assessed against a freedman for voluntarily leaving his 
employer without just cause before the expiration of the con- 
tract. 1 General Kiddoo seems to have appreciated the needs 
of the planters better than did his predecessor, and he en- 
joyed a corresponding share of their confidence. In June, 
when the crops had got into a " precarious condition by 
reason of the excessive rains and grass," all Bureau agents 
were instructed to advise the negroes to work early and late 
and to stand by their contracts in order to save the crops, 
because they had therein a common interest with the 
planters. 2 

The Texas Republican, August nth, published an order 
from the Bureau agent at Marshall containing a list of 

1 Circular Order no. 14, from file in Executive Correspondence. 

2 Circular Order no. 17, ibid. 



122 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ I22 

twelve freedmen who had left their employers, also named, 
and notifying other employers not to hire them. Notice 
was given that a weekly list of delinquent laborers would 
be published. These lists appeared in the paper from time 
to time. Evidently the Bureau officials were being driven 
to the adoption of measures they had formerly condemned. 
Again, it was found necessary, when the cotton picking 
season came on, to instruct agents everywhere to see to it 
that the negroes employed the utmost diligence in gathering 
the crop, which was short on account of excessive rains, 
grass, and the ravages of the army worm. 1 

When it was possible for an arm of the national govern- 
ment itself, organized and operated in the interest of the 
freedman and enjoying his full confidence, to keep him at 
work and out of mischief only by constant watchfulness and 
semi-coercion, it must have seemed urgently necessary that 
the state adopt a system of regulation more permanent than 
that of the Bureau professed to be. The legislature had 
before it, as a warning, evidences of the deep resentment 
of the North at the " black codes " enacted by the states 
reorganized during the previous year, and was able there- 
fore so to frame its laws as to offend in a less degree the 
watchful prejudices of Northern voters. 

The general apprenticeship law did not differ materially 
from those in force elsewhere. It provided that any minor, 
with the consent of parent or guardian, could be bound out 
by the county judge until twenty-one years of age unless 
sooner married. The master, or mistress, was to enter into 
bond to treat him humanely, teach him a trade, furnish 
medical attendance and schooling, and was allowed to in- 
flict moderate corporal punishment. A runaway could be 
recovered and brought before a justice and punished, or 

1 Circular Order no. 21, in Executive Correspondence. 



123] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT l2 ^ 

freed if he could prove he had good cause to run away. 
The apprentice could not be removed from the county with- 
out an order from the county judge. Any one enticing 
away an apprentice was subject to fine and suit for dam- 
ages. 1 The vagrancy law defined a vagrant as " any idle 
person living without any means of support and making no 
exertion to earn a livelihood by any honest employment," 
and comprehended the usual assorted list of undesirables. 2 
Neither of these acts made any mention of race or color 
and neither seems to have given enough offense to call for 
annulment by the Bureau. 

It was otherwise, however, with the labor law. The 
original Senate bill provided that every laborer should enter 
into a written contract for the whole year on or before the 
ioth day of January. Its authors undoubtedly had in mind 
negro labor only, and intended to provide against a repeti- 
tion of the troubles of the previous winter. Nevertheless, 
a severer blow to the best interests of the state could hardly 
be imagined, especially since no distinction was made be- 
tween white and black laborers and efforts were being made 
at the time to induce white immigration. In effect the bill 
prescribed that any laborer who failed to make a contract by 
January ioth, no matter what wages were offered, should be 
liable to punishment under the vagrancy law. The Southern 
Intelligencer furiously attacked the bill, denominating it " a 
legislative monster," and declaring " its practical effect 
would be to make labor synonymous with crime and to de- 
grade the free laborer to the condition of a slave." The 
House, however, so amended the bill as to allow contracts 
to be made at any time for any length of time. The Senate 
rejected the amendments and a joint conference committee 

1 Gammel, Laws of Texas, V, 979- 

2 Ibid., V, 1020. 



124 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ I24 

was appointed. The committee extended the time limit to 
January 20th, " or as soon as practicable thereafter," and 
made the law applicable only to " common laborers." 1 In 
this form the bill passed both House and Senate, but was 
later reconsidered in the House and cast into a more liberal 
form. As finally passed and approved, the act provided 
that all contracts for labor for periods longer than one 
month should be made in writing before a magistrate or 
two disinterested witnesses, signed in triplicate, and re- 
corded. Laborers had full liberty to choose employers, but 
could not leave them afterwards, except for just cause or 
by permission, on pain of forfeiture of all wages earned. 
Employers had the right to make deductions from wages 
for time lost, bad work, or for any injury done to tools or 
stock, but the laborer had a right of appeal to a magistrate. 
Laborers were not allowed to leave home without permis- 
sion or to have visitors during working hours, and were 
required to be obedient and respectful. They were given a 
lien on one-half the crop as security for their wages; the 
employer was subject to a fine for cruelty or non-fulfilment 
of contract, and the fine was to be paid to the laborer. 2 The 
supporters of the measure held that something of the kind 
was necessary for the proper regulation of the labor of an 
ignorant, improvident, and irresponsible people, still under 
the influence and traditions of recent slavery. Their oppo- 
nents very sensibly urged that the act was ruinous to white 
labor and would keep it out of the state. But the law was 
not long in force; for at the beginning of the next year 
General Kiddoo issued an order to the effect that it would 

1 House Journal Eleventh Legislature, 442, 446, 456, 515, 562, 718. 
Also Southern Intelligencer, October 4 and 11, 1866. 

2 Gammel, Laws of Texas, V, 994. 



125] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT l2 $ 

be disregarded, and that the contracts made in accordance 
with its provisions would not be approved. 1 

Minor measures were passed, one to punish persons en- 
ticing away contracted laborers, another explicitly granting 
to freedmen all rights not prohibited by the constitution, 
except intermarriage with whites, voting, holding public 
office, serving on juries, and testifying in cases in which 
negroes were not concerned. The governor was directed to 
examine into the affairs of the late military board and to 
take measures to recover for the state the United States 
bonds alleged to have been fraudulently paid out during 
the war; state troops were provided for the protection of 
the frontier, and President Johnson was petitioned to have 
the interior garrisons also removed thither. In the last 
days of the session the governor informed the President 
of the chief results accomplished and asked for suggestions. 
Mr. Johnson's only reply was to urge that the legislature 
" make all laws involving civil rights as complete as possible, 
so as to extend equal and exact justice to all persons with- 
out regard to color," if it had not already been done; and to 
express a firm confidence in the ultimate complete restora- 
tion of the Union. 2 

The legislature adjourned November 13th. All in all, 
its members had taken the course they might most reason- 
ably have been expected to take. If their selection of United 
States Senators was an unnecessary act of defiance, the re- 
jection of the Fourteenth Amendment may be ascribed to 
a higher motive, the desire to maintain at any cost the fun- 
damentals of their political philosophy, the cherished insti- 
tutions which alone in their eyes made for free government. 
Even the labor law, harsh and stringent as it seems, was 

1 General Orders no. 2, January 3, 1867, in Executive Correspondence. 

2 Annual Cyclopczdia, 1866, p. 743. 



126 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[126 



almost universally regarded as necessary both for the good 
conduct and for the protection of the negroes for whom 
alone it was intended. Keenly conscious only of local needs, 
the lawmakers had neglected to take sufficiently into account 
the forces preparing for their destruction in the North. 

4. Problems and Policies of Throckmorton's Admin- 
istration 

Governor Throckmorton regarded Mr. Johnson's peace 
proclamation of August 20, 1866, as legally and definitely 
terminating the war and clearly establishing the supremacy 
of the civil over the military authority. 1 To secure the 
recognition of this supremacy as an accomplished fact be- 
came the chief aim of his administration. It was a course 
which, because of the hostility of a powerful party to the 
restoration policy of the President and because of the jealous 
suspicion of the local radicals and many of the military offi- 
cials with whom he had to deal, was beset with many ob- 
stacles. But a definite and clear-cut plan is discernible 
throughout his term of office and one who follows its history 
closely must be impressed with the unfailing honesty and the 
strong common sense of the governor. 

His purpose was, first, by the vigilance of peace officers 
and the regular and unhampered operation of the courts to 
secure the restoration of order and a just and more complete 
enforcement of the laws; second, in this way to eliminate 
the necessity of military courts, particularly those of the 
Freedmen's Bureau, and to induce them to yield to the 
state courts full jurisdiction of cases properly belonging to 
the latter; and, third, to secure the removal of the military 
garrisons from the interior to the unprotected frontier now 
devastated by the Indians. 

1 Throckmorton to Shropshire, Executive Correspondence. 



12?] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT 12 y 

During the spring and summer of 1866 the violence and 
lawlessness which had characterized the previous year had 
been steadily decreasing; yet conditions were still unsettled 
and only relatively quiet. To travelers from the older states 
there doubtless seemed to be very little of personal securitv 
still, for bloody encounters were common, and in some 
localities the offenders were unpunished. It should be re- 
membered, however, that not only in Texas but in the 
Southwest generally sharp disagreements between man and 
man were settled as often by personal conflict as by legal 
adjustment, and where it had been " a fair fight " peace 
officers were likely to be negligent and juries lenient. It 
was the rough way of the frontier, and Texas was pre-emi- 
nently a frontier state. But so long as frontier methods 
should prevail to the neglect of the duly organized judiciary, 
it would be useless to expect that the military officials would 
report Texas as peaceful, or the freedmen and " loyalists " 
as safe; and, therefore, the governor exerted his influence 
to the utmost to secure energetic action from the sheriffs 
and promptness and impartial justice on the part of the 
courts. To this end he was in constant correspondence with 
influential citizens in all parts of the state and systematically 
urged upon the military confidence in the civil authorities. 

Had the governor and the army been in complete accord 
in regard to their respective jurisdictions, clashes between 
citizens and soldiers would nevertheless have been unavoid- 
able, for there was no way of foreseeing and preventing pri- 
vate quarrels. Far more serious than these, however, were 
several outbreaks which assumed a dangerous character 
because of reckless official participation in them. Of these 
the most notorious was the burning of Brenham, where a 
battalion of the 17th Infantry was stationed under the com- 
mand of Major G. W. Smith. On the night of September 
7, 1866, a crowd of drunken soldiers forced their way into 



128 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ I2 g 

and broke up a Wegro ball. Then, pursuing some negroes 
who fled for protection to a social gathering of some of the 
white people, they made their way thither and attempted 
to break up that. They were resisted, a fight ensued, and 
two soldiers were shot, but not seriously hurt. They went 
back to their camp and the whole force turned out and went 
to town, their commander with them. He arrested two 
citizens and threatened the town if others did not surrender 
themselves. Then, by his orders, two stores were broken 
into under pretense of searching for the citizens wanted, 
and were rifled of their contents. Shortly afterwards sol- 
diers were discovered setting one of these stores on fire. 
An entire block of buildings was destroyed with a loss of 
over $130,000. The citizens appealed to the governor, and 
at his request an investigation of the affair was made by 
the regimental commander, Colonel Mason, then on duty 
at Galveston. Mason's report disclosed practically nothing 
and was a palpable " white-wash ". 1 A special committee 
of the legislature, after an extensive investigation, made a 
report identifying certain soldiers as guilty and implicating 
Major Smith, who had allowed the accused soldiers to de- 
sert and had refused to assist the committee. 2 A grand jury 
indicted Smith on a charge of burglary and arson; but al- 
though Throckmorton appealed to the President on behalf 
of the civil courts, 3 it proved impossible to bring the officer 
to trial in defiance of his military superiors. 4 A judgment 

1 It is given in The Southern Intelligencer, September 27, 1866 

2 The report of the committee, with the testimony of all witnesses 
examined by it, is given in the appendix to House Journal, Eleventh 
Legislature. 

3 Throckmorton to Stanbery, October 12, 1866, copy in Executive 
Records, Register Book, no. 84, p. 120. 

4 Sheridan accepted unquestioningly the statements made by Mason 



I2 g] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT 



for damages was rendered against him in favor of a firm 
whose store had been burned; but in July, 1867, when mar- 
tial law was again supreme, General Griffin issued a special 
order reversing this judgment and dismissing all proceed- 
ings against the officer, because " the acts [of Smith] were 
committed in discharge of his duty as an officer, and the 
action of the court was dictated by a spirit of malicious per- 
secution, fostered by vindictive and disloyal sentiments." 1 

In Bosque County occurred an incident that does much to 
explain the bitter hostility frequently shown to the Freed- 
men's Bureau agents. A negro, charged with the rape of 
a young white woman, had been arrested, jailed, and duly 
indicted, when a Bureau agent, living twenty miles away, 
came in and demanded the negro of the sheriff, threatening 
that officer with arrest and trial before a military commis- 
sion at Houston if he refused to surrender the prisoner, 
and showing an order from his superior officer in justifica- 
tion of his action. The negro was turned over to him, only 
to be released shortly afterward. 2 A negro cook on a vessel 
entering Galveston was, at the request of the captain, ar- 
rested by the civil authorities on a charge of mutinous and 
disobedient conduct, but was released by order of General 
Kiddoo. 3 

In Matagorda County a freedman indicted for murderous 
assault was forcibly taken from the custody of the sheriff 

and Smith, and in his report to Washington, said: "At Brenham two 
unarmed soldiers were shot. The grand jury found no bill against the 
would-be assassins, but indicted Major Smith for burglary because he 
broke into the house of some citizen in order to arrest these men." 
Official Records, War of Rebellion, Ser. I, vol. xlviii, part i, 301. 

1 Special Order no. 133, July 10, 1867. 

2 J. K. Helton to Throckmorton, August 21, 1866, in Executive Cor- 
respondence. 

3 Alvan Reed to Throckmorton, ibid. 



130 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [j^q 

by the local Bureau agent. The governor, seeing that his 
belief in the supremacy of the civil authority was not shared 
by the Bureau officials, endeavored to come to some under- 
standing with them. He wrote to General Kiddoo concern- 
ing the affair at Matagorda : 

I desire to know if the action of the agent of the Bureau in 
thus interfering with the enforcement of the law is by your 
order and if he is sustained by you in so doing. I would re- 
spectfully desire of you, at your earliest convenience, informa- 
tion of the extent of your power and authority, and how far 
you expect to exercise it to interfere with the civil authorities 
in the exercise of their duty in bringing freedmen to trial for 
offenses committed against the laws of the state. ... I 
would also inquire if you recognize the President's peace pro- 
clamation as making the military subordinate to the civil au- 
thority. 1 

On the same date Throckmorton wrote Judge Shropshire 
at Matagorda that he had received information from Gen- 
eral Heintzelman, commanding the forces in western 
Texas, that General Grant had issued an order declaring 
the President's peace proclamation had superseded military 
orders previously issued requiring the military to interfere 
with the civil authority in certain cases. " In other words," 
added the governor with evident satisfaction, " the procla- 
mation restores the supremacy of civil over military au- 
thority." 2 

A serious situation existed at Victoria. The negro troops 
stationed there under the lax command of a Captain Spauld- 
ing had taken control of the county jail and rendered it 

1 Throckmorton to Kiddoo, November 7, 1866; copy in Executive 
Records, Register Book, no. 84, p. 125. 

2 Copy, ibid., p. 152. 



131] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT 1 <^ l 

impossible for the civil authorities to keep a negro or North- 
ern man confined there, no matter what his offense had been. 
It was alleged by the county judge that these soldiers had 
forcibly released two negroes convicted of horse-theft and 
an ex-federal soldier convicted of robbery. On the other 
hand, they had taken out and hanged a white man who 
was awaiting trial for the murder of a negro, and had ar- 
bitrarily imprisoned various citizens until the latter were 
willing to bribe their tormentors for their release. 1 The 
town was terrorized. No writ could be executed against 
any negro or friend of the soldiers. Throckmorton pro- 
tested vigorously to General Heintzelman and insisted that 
Spaulding be court-martialed and that the troops be re- 
moved from Victoria altogether. When the case finally 
came before General Sheridan, three months later, he or- 
dered that one of the soldiers be turned over to the civil 
authorities for trial, a concession that the governor found 
" very gratifying," in that " the military were disposed to 
recognize the civil authority of the state." 2 

A peculiar and yet in some ways a characteristic case 
came to notice in Bell County. In Collin County before the 
war a man named Lindley, who was a violent secessionist, 
was found to be connected with a gang of horse-thieves 
and was driven out. After the close of the war he turned 
up in Lampasas County engaged in the same business. 3 
Threatened with arrest and fearing the testimony of two 
citizens of Bell County named Daws and Duncan, he pro- 

1 C. Carson and others to Throckmorton, MSS. in Executive Cor- 
respondence. Also Throckmorton to Heintzelman, September 25, 1866; 
copy in Executive Correspondence. 

2 Throckmorton to Shropshire, copy, ibid. 

3 Throckmorton to Sheridan, Executive Records, Register Book, no. 
84, p. 246; also Throckmorton to Stanbery, ibid., p. 122. 



132 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



cured their arrest by the military authorities on the plea that 
he was a " Union " man and that his son had been hanged 
during the war by the said Daws and Duncan because of his 
Union sentiments. While these men were in charge of a 
military escort they were shot down by Lindley in cold 
blood, with no effort at interference by the officers in charge, 
who even attempted to protect Lindley from punishment. 
Both Lindley and the officer were indicted by the grand jury 
of Bell County, but the military authorities insisted that they 
be tried before a military commission and refused to allow 
any attorney to represent the state or even to submit written 
questions to the witnesses. 1 Whatever the reason for so 
doing, the military court acquitted both the accused; but 
later Lindley was arrested by the civil authorities and jailed 
at Belton. He loudly demanded a guard of troops ; but, 
backed by the promises of the citizens, the governor assured 
the military that the prisoner was safe. Nevertheless, a 
mob broke into the jail and hanged him. Heralded to the 
world as the martyrdom of a " Union man ", his death fur- 
nished political capital to the radicals, while the failure of 
the citizens of Bell County to merit theconfidence and to 
sustain the promises of the governor seriously weakened 
his efforts to get rid of the military and caused him both 
anxiety and chagrin. 

Numbers of instances could be cited wherein military 
officials over-rode the civil authority in true cavalier fashion. 
At Lockhart and at Seguin court records and papers were 
seized and destroyed or mutilated. In Houston a negro 
indicted and confined for an attempted murder escaped, and 
the Bureau agent resisted his rearrest by the sheriff. The 
county judge of Grimes County was placed under military 



1 Throckmorton to Heintzelrnan, September 24, 1886, MS. copy in 
Executive Correspondence. 



133] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT l ^ 

arrest. At Brenham the Bureau agent seized and made 
use of the jail and imprisoned the editor of a local paper 
for publicly criticising the conduct of certain teachers of 
freedmen. The editor was released after three weeks 
through the intervention of the governor, who sent a protest 
to General Kiddoo. In Grayson County a government agent 
who had been arrested for offenses committed before enter- 
ing upon his office was forcibly released by the military. To 
lay all the blame for these troubles upon the military would 
manifestly be unjust; in many cases they were provoked by 
the dilatoriness of the civil courts or by the prejudices oc- 
casionally manifested against those new rights claimed for 
the negro but not clearly granted him by the state code. 
Moreover, as the peace proclamation of the President could 
not abolish a jurisdiction established by Congress, the offi- 
cers of the Freedmen's Bureau were still in duty bound to 
interfere in behalf of the negro whenever they believed he 
was being unjustly treated. 

It was in obedience to this obligation that General Griffin, 
the new assistant commissioner for Texas, in a circular 
order issued January 26, 1867, directed his subordinates to 
" enforce the rights of freedmen according to the laws of 
Congress whenever injustice is done them or whenever the 
civil authorities neglect to render them justice." 1 A week 
later, however, relations with the civil authority were more 
carefully denned and the force of the above order somewhat 
modified by instructions that all criminal cases in which 
freedmen were concerned should be left to the civil authori- 
ties ; but that unpunished or unnoticed outrages upon freed- 
men and all cases arising under the Civil Rights Act should 
be reported to military headquarters; that in civil suits the 
agents were merely to act as the advisers of the freedmen 



1 See Flake's Weekly Bulletin, February 6, 1867. 



134 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [^34 

before the courts and to report the action of the courts to 
headquarters; and that the enforcement of the state va- 
grancy and apprenticeship laws should not be interfered 
with it fairly administered. 1 Though inclined at times to 
allow the civil authorities opportunity to prove their desire 
to administer real justice, it is, nevertheless, pretty clear 
that the man of arms was too often skeptical of their justice, 
too frequently disposed to bully, to resort to force when his 
jurisdiction was questioned, and to protect one of his own 
faith and party against the law of the " rebel " without 
inquiring very carefully into the merits of the case or into 
the right of the civil authorities to be respected. 

More harmful, however, to the new state government 
than the troubles indicated above were the statements sent 
to Washington by high federal officials. In his final report 
of inspection of Bureau affairs in Texas, made in June, 
1866, General Gregory had stated that Union men and 
freedmen were " trembling for their lives and preparing to 
leave the state," that murders and outrages upon freedmen 
had been on the increase since March (i. e., since the ad- 
journment of the convention) and that the criminals were 
always acquitted in the civil courts. 2 In his zeal to aid his 
radical friends the commissioner had forgotten that the 
civil officials of whom he complained were those appointed 
by Hamilton, since the recently elected conservatives were 
not installed until August. Sheridan, in his official report, 
declared that conditions in Texas were such that the trial 
of a white man for killing a negro would be a farce, 3 and 
in a letter to Throckmorton, January 16, 1867, asserted 

1 See Southern Intelligencer, February 2, 1867. 

2 Gregory to Howard, printed in Flake's Weekly Bulletin, August 1, 
1866. 

8 See Official Records, War of Rebellion, Ser. I, vol. xlviii, pt. i, 
p. 301. 



135] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT l ^ 

that " there are more casualties occurring from outrages 
perpetrated upon Union men and freedmen in the interior 
of the state than occur from Indian depredations on the 
frontier. The former greatly exceed the latter and are 
induced by the old rebellious sentiment." 1 To this Throck- 
morton entered a prompt and vigorous denial. He told 
Sheridan that the latter and his officers had for the most 
part been imposed upon by men who proclaimed themselves 
" outraged Union men," but who had really never been 
Union men at all; more often they were rogues and horse- 
thieves who set up that cry in order to get protection of the 
military. He himself had been a Union man before the 
war, had had extensive correspondence with Union men all 
over the state, and knew that some of these men who were 
now being outraged " for their Union sentiment " had for- 
merly been " brawling, blatant secessionists " and notorious 
for their bad character. 2 Not content with this, the gov- 
ernor, on February 9th, sent out circular inquiries to the 
civil officers throughout the state, chiefly to the justices of 
the county courts, regarding the treatment of Union men 
and freedmen in the courts and at the hands of the people 
in general, and making specific inquiries concerning such 
cases as had been brought to his attention. In the answers 
to this circular it was claimed without exception that the 
law was impartially enforced upon all classes without dis- 
tinction of color or politics. Some writers complained of 
the Bureau officials, some of the soldiers, while some were 
on the best of terms with the military, to whom they re- 
ferred for endorsement of their statements. Although one 
is tempted to suspect that many of the civil officials en- 

1 MS. in Executive Correspondence. 

2 Throckmorton to Sheridan, Executive Records, Register Books, no. 
84, p. 246. 



136 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [^6 

deavored to make out as cheerful a picture of conditions as 
possible, a careful examination of the records of the execu- 
tive office goes far to bear out their statements so far as the 
courts were concerned. In trials of homicide of freedmen 
the defendants were often acquitted, but numerous cases 
are found in which white men were convicted on this charge. 
On the other hand, numbers of negroes convicted of petty 
crimes, such as theft, were pardoned by the governor upon 
petition of judge and jurors. The longest and most inter- 
esting of the reports above mentioned is from Robert Wil- 
son, county judge of Grayson County, who confessed that 
many foul murders had been committed in his county, 
but insisted that they were the work of a band of outlaws 
from across Red River in the Indian Territory. The freed- 
men, he said, suffered from no injustice in the courts, and 
the instances of their mistreatment by the people were rare. 
Union men were not persecuted : he himself had always 
been a Union man and had been elected over a secessionist 
of unimpeachable character. A " refugee " had recently 
gained a law suit, though several times beaten before the 
war. The cry of persecution had always come from some 
person who, having transgressed the law, wished to enlist 
for his defense the sympathies of the military and of the 
general government. 1 

On the whole, Throckmorton's confidence in the ability of 
the state and local officials to maintain justice and order 
seems to have justified itself, though a few localities still 
retained an undesirable reputation for violence and out- 
rage. 2 The governor, however, had not been content to 
wait for conditions in the interior to become thoroughly 

1 For this and other reports see Executive Correspondence. 

2 For alleged outrages upon freedmen at Prairie Lea, see W. C 
Philips to Throckmorton, MS., ibid. 



137] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT ^ 

settled before trying to relieve the situation on the frontier. 
It will be remembered that Hamilton had spent some effort 
in that direction but had finally acquiesced in Sheridan's 
claim that the troops were needed more in the interior. 
Perhaps Throckmorton's previous experience on the fron- 
tier and as commissioner to the Indians under the Confed- 
eracy made him peculiarly alive to the situation in that re- 
gion. Certain it is that the harrowing tales of cruelty and 
suffering and the constant appeals for protection that came 
to him weighed heavily upon his mind. Hardly was he 
seated in the governor's chair when he urgently requested 
General Wright to send troops to the desolated border, 1 and 
he gave the subject of frontier relief a prominent place in 
his message to the legislature. 2 Wright, keeping in line 
with Sheridan's former attitude, replied that he had no 
authority to establish new posts; that it was wholly within 
the power of General Sheridan ; and that, besides, there was 
not sufficient force in Texas for the work without breaking 
up the interior posts. Seeing that it was useless to wait 
upon the military commander, the governor wrote on Au- 
gust 25th to President Johnson, as commander-in-chief, 
describing the conditions on the frontier and urgently re- 
peating his request that troops from the interior go to its 
protection since they were not needed for the enforcement 
of the law. 3 Mr. Johnson referred the matter to Stanton, 
Secretary of War, who referred it to Grant and told Throck- 
morton to confer with Sheridan. 4 Thrown back upon the 
mercies of Sheridan, he next appealed to General Heintzel- 

1 See Executive Records, Register Book, no. 84, p. 37. 

2 House Journal, Eleventh Legislature, 80. 

3 Copy in Executive Records, Register Book, no. 84, p. 60; also MS. 
in Johnson Papers. 

4 MS. in Johnson Papers. 



138 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[138 



man, in command of the western division of Texas, and suc- 
ceeded in persuading him to send two regiments of cavalry 
to the lower frontier. 1 The legislature authorized the rais- 
ing of one thousand state troops, 2 which were tendered 
Sheridan, but were refused by him on the ground that the 
United States could furnish all the soldiers necessary. 3 In 
his annual report to the war department, Sheridan de- 
clared that justice was not done freedmen, Union men, and 
soldiers in the interior, and that troops were still needed 
there; and expressed the belief that the reports of Indian 
depredations on the frontier were " probably exaggerated " 
and that conditions were " not alarming." However, he 
stated that frontier posts would be established in the spring. 4 
When a measure of protection was finally afforded, Texas 
had passed again into a " provisional organization." 

5. The Work of the Freedmen' s Bureau 
The chief activities of the Bureau from the spring of 
1866 to March, 1867, may be indicated in brief space. The 
measure of relief work carried on in Texas had never been 
very great. 5 Such indigent negroes as were not cared for 
by their former masters were transferred to the charge of 
the counties on the ground that they were citizens and en- 
titled to poor relief, as clearly as were indigent whites. 6 
During the fifteen months ending September 1, 1866, the 

1 Throckmorton to Heintzelman, and Heintzelman to Throckmorton, 
MS. in Executive Correspondence. 

2 Gammel, Laws of Texas, V, 928, 942, 1035. 

3 See MS. in Executive Correspondence. 

4 Official Records, War of Rebellion, Ser. I, vol. xlviii, pt. i, p. 301. 
Sheridan seemed to believe that the whole affair was a mere ruse to get 
the military out of the way in order that the freedmen and unionists 
might be left defenceless against " rebel " hostility. 

5 Supra, p. 71 et seq. 

6 Kiddoo, Circular Order, no. 16, June 18, 1866. 



139] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT ^ 

average number of rations issued daily in the whole state 
was only twenty-nine. 1 The number of pupils enrolled in 
the schools for freedmen was over four thousand five hun- 
dred, with forty-three teachers. 2 

The most constant watchfulness had not been sufficient 
to hold the negro to his contract, and, in his own interest 
as well as that of the planter, appropriate measures had 
been taken from time to time to keep him in the fields until 
the crop was gathered. On this account Kiddoo became 
convinced that contracts for labor should be made for the 
entire year instead of by months, especially in the cotton- 
growing districts. 3 In order to protect those who were em- 
ployed by the month he ordered that all unpaid wages were 
to be held as a first lien on the crop, regardless of sales, 
rents, or other claims whatsoever; and that, where so spe- 
cified in the contract, payments should be made in specie or 
its equivalent in currency at the time the contract was made. 4 
Later, in the cotton-picking season, the officials of the 
Bureau were instructed to see that the freedmen who had 
worked on shares got their just portion of the crop and the 
market price for it. When necessary the agents were to 
arbitrate differences arising out of claims for supplies fur- 
nished the freedmen during the summer; but, except in ex- 
treme cases, this was to be avoided, and the agents were to 
confine themselves to the arbitration of differences arising 
out of written contracts for labor. 5 By a later order, he 

1 Howard, Annual Report, House Exec. Docs., 39th Cong., 2 sess., 
If 745- 

2 Ibid. 

3 Kiddoo to Howard, in Flake's Weekly Bulletin, August 22, 1866. 

4 Circular Order, no. 19, August 20, 1866, in Executive Correspon- 
dence. Paper money was at a discount at this time. 

6 Circular Order, no. 21, October 1, 1866, in Executive Corres- 
pondence. 



* 



140 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ I40 

insisted that no contract for labor to which a freedman was 
a party could be regarded as finally settled until arbitrated 
and fulfilment certified to by an officer of the Bureau. 1 In 
order to avoid misunderstanding growing out of indefinite 
terms in the contracts, all agents were instructed to take 
care that in the contracts for the next year every detail of 
the agreement should be specified and that nothing be left 
to be " understood " ; and they were also required to urge 
the freedmen to take a portion of the crop rather than 
monthly wages. 2 The labor law devised by the legislature 
was repudiated by Kiddoo and contracts made in accord- 
ance therewith were disapproved; but General Griffin, who 
succeeded Kiddoo on January 24, 1867, uniting the mili- 
tary command of the state with the control of the Bureau, 
adopted some of its provisions. Contracts for labor could 
be drawn up before and ratified by a civil magistrate or any 
two disinterested witnesses, provided that a copy was sent 
to Bureau headquarters ; a copy was also to be filed with the 
county clerk. 3 Within a few weeks Texas was again under 
military rule, when there was no question of the relative 
status of the civil and the military authority ; but the Bureau 
had never been in doubt of its own authority and the pro- 
tests of the state officials had made little impression upon its 
policies. 

Hampered as he was on all sides by the open hostility of 
the radicals, the suspicion of the military officials, and the 
thinly veiled antagonism of the old secession wing of his 
own party, Throckmorton had maintained his difficult posi- 

1 Circular Order, no. 23, November I, 1866, in Executive Corres- 
pondence; also in Southern Intelligencer, November 15, 1866. 

2 Circular Order, no. 21, December 25, 1866, in Southern Intelligencer, 
January 3, 1867. 

3 See Flake's Weekly Bulletin, February 6, 1867 ; also Southern In- 
telligencer, February 14, 1867. 



I 4I ] RESTORATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT I4I 

tion with dignity and a large measure of success. Although 
prevented from affording relief to the suffering frontier, 
and unable to eliminate entirely the jurisdiction of the 
Bureau, he was, nevertheless, making steady progress in re- 
storing the state to order and in inculcating a respect for 
legal processes. Much still remained to be done; but as 
lawlessness and violence gradually became less prevalent, 
the military had shown a tendency to acquiesce more and 
more in the extension of civil jurisdiction, and one can not 
escape the conclusion that, had Congress kept hands off, 
Texas would have been fully restored in a short while to 
that condition of real peace which it was the professed aim 
of the Reconstruction Acts to bring about. 



PART II 

CONGRESSIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 



CHAPTER VII 



The Undoing of Civil Government 

i. The Reconstruction Acts 

Although neither in its form nor in its content could it 
have been accurately anticipated, the Reconstruction Act 
that became law March 2, 1867, was not wholly unexpected 
by well-informed people in any part of the South. The in- 
creasing strength and activity of the Radicals during the 
previous year, the general resentment of the North at the 
rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment by the southern 
legislatures, the widening breach between the moderate 
Republicans and the President, and the overwhelming sup- 
port given to his opponents in the fall elections, had made 
it plain enough that Mr. Johnson's plan for the restoration 
of the southern states was already defeated when the Thirty- 
ninth Congress met for its last session. The question now 
was as to the plan that would be substituted for his. 1 

Although they had been slow to formulate any program 
of their own, the majority in Congress felt that something 
must be done towards settling affairs in the South before 
the close of the session on March 4th. Thaddeus Stevens 
had endeavored to force through a purely military bill, de- 
stroying the existing state governments, establishing mar- 
tial law, and leaving the whole matter of re-admission to be 
arranged by the incoming and more radical Fortieth Con- 
gress; but the moderates were unwilling to become respon- 

1 See Texas Republican, January 5 and 12, 1867; San Antonio Daily 
Herald, Jan. 9, 10, and 14, 1867; other papers, passim. 

145] MS 



146 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[146 



sible for a scheme so drastic and so fraught with perilous 
precedents, and they succeeded in engrafting upon the bill a 
plan for the resuscitation of civil government. 

In brief, the first Reconstruction Act 1 declared that no 
legal state governments or adequate protection for life or 
property existed in the " rebel " states; that they should be 
divided into military districts, of which Louisiana and 
Texas should constitute the fifth; that to the command of 
each district the President should appoint a general officer 
of the army, whose duty it should be to protect all persons 
in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrec- 
tion, disorder, and violence, and to punish disturbers of the 
peace and criminals. At the discretion of the commander, 
local civil tribunals could be allowed to try offenders or they 
could be tried before military commissions; and there should 
be no interference, under color of state law, with the exer- 
cise of military authority. However, no sentence of a mili- 
tary commission, affecting the life or liberty of any person, 
should be executed until approved by the district com- 
mander. It was further provided that whenever the people 
of any state, through a convention chosen by universal 
manhood suffrage (excluding such persons as were disfran- 
chised for participation in the rebellion or for felony, or 
were debarred from holding office by the Fourteenth 
Amendment), had framed a constitution in conformity to 
that of the United States, and when such constitution had 
been ratified by a majority of the persons voting thereon 
and had been approved by Congress, and when the state 
legislature had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, the 
state should be readmitted to the Union and its senators and 
representatives to Congress. Finally, it was declared that 
the existing state (Johnson) governments should be deemed 

1 Acts and Resolutions, 39 C, 2 s., p. 608. Also in Fleming, Docu- 
mentary History of Reconstruction, I, 401. 



I 4 7] THE UND OING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT 



147 



provisional only, " and in all respects subject to the para- 
mount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, 
modify or control, or supersede " ; and that in elections held 
under them the same rules as to suffrage should apply as 
in voting for the constitutional convention, and the same 
disqualifications for holding office as were provided by the 
Fourteenth Amendment. 

This act, however, failed to provide the initiative ma- 
chinery for calling the constitutional conventions; and one 
of the first measures of the Fortieth Congress was the Sup- 
plementary Reconstruction Act of March 23rd, 1 designed 
to remedy this defect. It provided that the commanding 
general in each district should, before September 1st, cause 
a registration to be made of all qualified citizens in each 
county, and that each citizen so registering should take an 
oath that he was not disqualified by law; that, at an elec- 
tion subsequently to be held at a time designated by the dis- 
trict commander, the voters should vote for or against a 
convention and choose delegates to the same ; but no conven- 
tion should be held unless a majority of the registered voters 
should have participated in the election and a majority of 
those actually voting should have favored the convention. 
If declared for by a majority of voters, the convention 
should be called at a time and place designated by the mili- 
tary commander; and the constitution framed by it should 
be submitted to the qualified voters for ratification; and, if 
ratified by one-half of those actually voting — provided that 
the total number of actual voters equaled half of the regis- 
tered voters — and approved by Congress, the state should 
be declared entitled to representation in Congress. 

The purpose and effect of these two acts was to paralyze 
the state governments that had been restored since the war, 

1 Acts and Resolutions, 40 C, 1 s., p. 260. Also in Fleming, op. ext., 
I, p. 407. 



1 48 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[I 4 8 



to place the whole South under potential martial law, to 
disfranchise the leading whites, and to enfranchise the 
blacks. It was expected by the framers and advocates of 
these measures that the negroes and their white radical 
friends would control the states, thereby insuring " loyal " 
governments. The authors of these acts had insisted that 
the South was in a condition bordering upon anarchy and 
that this was due to the rebellious and disloyal disposition 
of its people, that everywhere unionists and loyal freedmen 
were unsafe, were being outraged and murdered. Never, 
perhaps, was punitive legislation founded upon a more dis- 
torted array of evidence, upon a worse misrepresentation 
as to facts. Some few select witnesses had been examined, 
a great number of anonymous complaints of persecuted 
loyalists had been aired, but in the case of no state had there 
been an honest effort to gain an impartial knowledge of the 
whole truth, certainly not in Texas. It should be remem- 
bered that the accused were given no opportunity to state 
their own case, or to answer the allegations against them; 
at best, their protests were simply ignored. The only state- 
ments that gained credence were those of military officials, 
usually not unprejudiced and frequently imposed upon by 
designing persons, and of local radical politicians who were 
laboriously striving to excite feeling against the state gov- 
ernment in order to serve their own ambitious purposes. 
It will be remembered that a number of Texas radicals 
spent the winter of 1866-67 m Washington in close attend- 
ance upon the radical leaders in Congress. 

The people of Texas were not wholly surprised at the 
sentence pronounced upon their government by Congress, 
but they were not prepared to receive it with perfect equa- 
nimity. However, after the first bitterness had spent itself 
somewhat, the press, influenced perhaps by the governor, 
began to advise quiet submission to the will of Congress as 



I4 9] THE UNDOING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT 14 g 

the less of two evils — since delay would bring only harsher 
conditions — and to urge all who could to register as voters. 1 
But neither press nor people were at heart reconciled to 
their political degradation, and while the latter for the most 
part relapsed into sullen despair, the former could not re- 
frain from indignant and bitter comment. 

2. The Provisional State Government and the Military 
Commanders 

On March 19th, General Sheridan, who was already sta- 
tioned at New Orleans as commander of the Department 
of the Gulf, was made commander of the new Fifth Military 
District, consisting of Louisiana and Texas. General 
Charles Griffin, already at Galveston, remained as com- 
mander of the District of Texas. As a soldier Sheridan 
had shown abilities that approximated to genius and he was 
justly popular in the North ; but he was now called upon to 
perform duties and to carry out a task that demanded other 
qualities than those requisite for a military campaign, and 
his arbitrary methods as well as the harshness and sus- 
picion which he had always manifested towards the people 
of the South, particularly of Texas, were not reassuring to 
those who had to live under his heavy hand. 

Throckmorton, however, firm in the belief that every law 
should be honestly obeyed as long as it was the law of the 
land, and desirous of maintaining the most friendly rela- 
tions with the military commanders, in order that some de- 
gree of civil government might be preserved in Texas, on 
March 27th telegraphed Sheridan requesting an opportunity 
to confer with him in order that the civil authorities of the 
state might co-operate to the best advantage with the mili- 
tary in executing the recent legislation of Congress. 2 He 

1 San Antonio Daily Herald, March 13, 17, 21, 26, 1867; Texas Repub- 
lican, June 29, 1867. 

2 See Throckmorton, Address to the People of Texas, pamphlet in 
Texas State Library ; also printed in the Dallas Herald, September, 1867. 



150 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [j^q 

received the curt reply that the civil authorities of Texas 
could assist in the reorganization of the state only by strongly 
supporting the military commander and by advising the 
people to participate with good feeling in the reorganiza- 
tion under the law ; and that the details of the work in Texas 
had been entrusted to General Griffin. 1 To this the gov- 
ernor replied that the people of Texas would co-operate in 
carrying out the congressional plan, though they regarded 
the terms as onerous and oppressive. 2 

Despite the ungracious attitude of Sheridan, due perhaps 
to their earlier controversies, Throckmorton was hopeful 
of maintaining cordial relations with Griffin. But though 
he seemed to succeed for a time, he never really enjoyed 
the confidence of this officer, who was unable to comprehend 
his real unionism, but, like Sheridan, lumped all ex-Con- 
federates together and hastily identified anti-radicalism with 
disloyalty. The governor's moderation, his efforts to follow 
a middle policy removed from the radicals on the one hand 
and from the secession leaders on the other, was lost upon 
the general as it was upon the secessionist extremists, who 
never had forgiven and never afterward forgave Throck- 
morton for his stand against them in 1861. On March 
28th, Griffin had written to Sheridan that none of the civil 
officers of Texas could be trusted; for, though they would 
submit to the laws because they could not do otherwise, 
they nevertheless thought them unjust and oppressive; and 
" the laws ought to be executed in spirit He charged 
that the governor had allowed outrages upon loyal whites 
and blacks to go unpunished, and advised his removal as 
" absolutely necessary ", together with that of the lieuten- 
ant-governor, G. W. Jones. Judge C. Caldwell, an ultra- 

1 Telegram from Sheridan, in Executive Correspondence. 

2 Copy in Executive Records, Register Book 84; also in Throck- 
morton's Address. 



I5I ] THE UNDOING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT 



radical, was recommended in the place of Throckmorton. 
Sheridan sent the letter with a favorable endorsement to 
Grant, who advised against the removals until it should 
become clear that the authority for such action belonged to 
the military. 1 

The acts of Congress had left the civil government of the 
state " provisional only, and in all respects subject to the 
paramount authority of the United States to abolish, modify 
or control, or supersede " ; but the extent to which inter- 
ference should be undertaken was apparently left to the dis- 
cretion of the military commander of the district, subject, 
of course, to the approval of the President as commander- 
in-chief. Because, therefore, so much depended upon the 
course the commander would take, Throckmorton endeav- 
ored, as soon as possible, to come to a general understand- 
ing with him. On April 3rd, he wrote to General Griffin, 
asking how vacancies in state and county offices should be 
filled — whether by the governor's appointment, or by elec- 
tions ordered by him, the persons so appointed or elected 
not being disqualified by the third section of the proposed 
Fourteenth Amendment. With reference to the disquali- 
fication of persons who, after taking an oath to support 
the Constitution of the United States, had taken part in in- 

1 Sen. Ex. Docs., 40 C, 1 s., no. 14, pp. 194-195. It may be that the 
governor had given Griffin some offense just before this by refusing 
fo comply with the remarkable request that he pardon the two hundred 
and twenty-seven negro convicts then in the Huntsville penitentiary. A 
Bureau inspector, W. H. Sinclair, later to become a prominent radical 
politician under the carpet-bag regime, had interested himself in their 
behalf, and had readily accepted the statements of the negroes them- 
selves that their offenses were wholly trivial. The governor easily dis- 
proved this, and went into a patient argument to show the fairness of 
the trial of freedmen, their frequent pardons at his hands, and the 
danger to society and to the freedmen themselves of granting the re- 
quest for such a wholesale pardon. Executive Records, Register Book 
84, p. 284. 



152 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [jc^ 

surrection or rebellion, he also requested that the general 
give his construction of the term " executive or judicial 
officer of a state as to whether it should be extended to 
include clerks of courts, sheriffs, constables, coroners, no- 
taries public, and so on. The governor, naturally, inclined 
to a narrower construction. 1 Griffin, not inclined to pass 
on the troublesome point himself, referred the query to 
Sheridan, who, on April 13th, answered Throckmorton as 
follows : 

You can appoint to all vacancies which occur among your own 
appointees. You cannot appoint to any elective position. You 
are not authorized to call elections ; and no elections will be 
permitted in your state until they are ordered, under the law, 
by the military commander. Any vacancies which occur by 
elections being forbidden will be filled by the military com- 
mander. The other questions in your letter will be settled 
authoritatively before the elections are ordered. 2 

In conformity with instructions sent at the same time to 
Griffin, the latter embodied the above pronouncement in a 
special order, which further required the governor to report 
to military headquarters all appointments made by him. 3 
Throckmorton, thereupon, sent to Griffin a list of all officers 
that were appointed under the state law. The whole sub- 
ject, then, of appointments to office in the civil government, 
with trifling exceptions, was summarily taken out of the 
hands of the governor, and he was given no satisfaction 
as to the last part of his question. Beyond doubt, Sheridan, 
in this extensive assertion of authority, was taking the 
course that the majority in Congress desired; but he seems 

1 Executive Records, loc. cit., p. 296; also in Throckmorton's Address. 

2 MS., in Exec. Corres.; copy in Throckmorton's Address. 

3 Special Orders, no. 66, copy in Exec. Corres. 



153] THE UND OING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT 1 ^ 

to have been actuated as much by his old suspicions of the 
people and authorities of Texas, as by his regard for the 
wishes of Congress. 

On April 4th, Griffin wrote to Throckmorton, soliciting 
his aid in registering the qualified voters of the state — ask- 
ing for the probable white and black vote of each county, 
and for the names of persons, irrespective of color, who 
could act as registrars and take the test oath, i. e., the " iron- 
clad oath ". The governor immediately issued a circular 
address to all county judges requesting them to forward the 
required information without delay. He concluded by 
urging upon them and the people of their respective counties 
" the propriety and absolute necessity, at this juncture of 
our affairs, of contributing to the fullest extent every aid 
possible in order that the military authorities may be enabled 
to execute the acts of Congress properly and fairly ". 1 The 
replies came in promptly and rapidly, and were forwarded 
to General Griffin with the assurance that the state officials 
were anxious to observe the law and aid in its execution. 2 

Although he knew nothing of Griffin's request for his 
removal, the governor soon found himself deprived of the 
hope of maintaining amicable relations with the military. 
The fact that each approached the delicate problems in- 
volved in the situation from a different point of view would 
alone have made a working agreement difficult enough to 
keep ; but there was added the other factor of radical politi- 
cal opposition to the governor. Hardly had Congress pro- 
nounced its anathema against the state government, when 
the radical papers began a systematic attack upon the whole 
force of state officials, and radical politicians and office- 
seekers began to file complaints against " rebels in author- 

1 Executive Records, loc. cit., p. 302. Published in Southern In- 
telligencer, April 11, 1867. 

2 Executive Records, loc. cit., p. 307. 



154 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [^4 

ity " with both Griffin and Sheridan. 1 On April 15th, 
Throckmorton had complained to Griffin of the " lying and 
slanderous attacks " of certain newspapers, and insisted that 
he was exceedingly desirous to have the laws executed and 
peace and good feeling restored ; that he advocated compli- 
ance with the law, not because he approved it, but because 
it was better to act under it than longer delay restoration. 2 
Griffin replied politely, expressing liis gratification at these 
assurances and adding that when such a favorable dispo- 
sition should become " both sincere and prevalent in Texas " 
the work of reconstruction would present no difficulties. 3 
The retort courteous was, on the occasion of transmitting 
the lists from the county judges of persons qualified as regis- 
trars, that these promptly furnished lists were the evidence 
of a desire, " both sincere and prevalent ", to aid in exe- 
cuting the law of Congress. 

There seems no room to doubt that Throckmorton was 
acting entirely in good faith. When a complaint came from 
a group of unionists at Prairie Lee that freedmen and Union 
men were being outraged and murdered by " reconstructed 
rebels he immediately had a military force sent to main- 
tain order. By his request soldiers were sent also to Lam- 
pasas County to assist the courts and the peace officers. 
About the last of April he received notice from Griffin that 
the latter was in receipt of a petition from sixty citizens of 
Parker and Jack counties charging that in that district 
Union men were being robbed and murdered with impunity, 
that the guilty were never punished in the courts, that cer- 
tain Union men acquitted of charges in Hamilton's admin- 
istration were about to be tried again, and that the judges 
of the courts were inciting rebellious sentiments. At once, 

1 See Reconstruction Correspondence of General GrfUn, MSS., filed 
with Exec. Corres. 

2 Executive Records, loc. cit., p. 300. 

3 MS. in Exec. Corres.; quoted in Throckmorton's Address. 



I 5 5] THE UNDOING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT l ^ 

April 29th, he wrote to County Judge Hunter of Parker 
County and Judges Good and Weaver of the fifth and 
seventh judicial districts, reciting in each case the substance 
of the complaints and asking for statements and sworn evi- 
dence as to the facts alleged. Urging upon them that the 
laws must be impartially enforced and every person pro- 
tected in life and property, particularly that Union men 
should be protected and all excitement and prejudice allayed, 
he informed them that troops would have to be sent there, 
and that he intended to request that a discreet officer of the 
army be detailed to examine into the procedure of their 
courts. Writing the next day to General Griffin, he assured 
the commander from his personal knowledge of that region 
that both sides had been guilty of outrages, but that if it 
could be shown that any civil officer was guilty as charged 
he should be removed and punished. " I shall by no act of 
mine seek to smother investigation, screen guilt, or avert 
the blow when justice demands that it fall." In conclusion, 
he defended the character of the judges in question, but re- 
quested that troops under discreet officers be sent to the seat 
of trouble and that another discreet officer be detailed to 
watch the work of the courts. 1 

So many complaints had gone into headquarters, how- 
ever, that the commander was still suspicious, if not of the 
governor, at least of the courts. On April 15th he had 
ordered that such criminal cases as could not be tried impar- 
tially in civil courts should be carried to his headquarters 
for trial before a military commission. 2 On April 27th 
he issued from Galveston the famous Circular no. 13, gen- 
erally known as the " Jury Order ". 3 It ran as follows : 

1 Letters from Griffin, Good and others in MSS., Exec. Corres.; 
copies of Throckmorton's letters in Executive Records, loc. cit., pp. 
317-321. 2 Annual Cyclopedia, 1867, p. 714. 

8 Printed in Sen. Ex. Doc. 40 C, 1 s., no. 14, pp. 208-209; Texas 
Republican, May n, 1867, and in Throckmorton's Address. 



156 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [156 

The attention of the Commanding General of the District 
having been directed to the fact that persons disqualified by 
law are drawn to serve as jurors in the civil courts of the State 
of Texas, it is hereby ordered that hereafter no person shall 
be held as eligible to serve or to be sworn in as a juryman until 
he shall have taken the following oath : 

Here followed the text of the iron-clad oath, 1 after which 
the order continued : 

To prevent the exclusion of loyal citizens from the jury box 
on account of race or color, and for the guidance of officials 
authorized to impanel juries in the State of Texas, the follow- 
ing section of the Civil Rights Bill is published: 

Then followed the second section of that act. 2 

Just what General Griffin meant by the assertion that per- 
sons " disqualified by law " were being drawn to serve as 
jurors is not easy to determine. It could not have been the 
state law that was being violated, for the courts were 
anxious to observe that. The Reconstruction Acts under 
which he was professedly acting had stipulated nothing as 
to jurors, unless jurors were to be regarded as officers of 
the state; and even in that case the only qualification de- 

1 Supra, p. 116, note 4. 

2 "Any person who, under cover of any law, statute, ordinance, regu- 
lation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant 
of any state or territory to the deprivation of any right secured or 
protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on 
account of such person having at any time been held in a condition 
of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime 
where-of the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of his 
color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, 
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be 
punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprison- 
ment not exceeding one year, or both, in the direction of the court." 
— U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. xiv, p. 27. 



I 5 7] THE UND OING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT l c >7 

manded was innocence of felony and the ability to take the 
oath prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment — one not 
so stringent as the iron-clad oath. Indeed, it is difficult to 
find any legal warrant for anorder prescribing the test oath 
except by construing jurors in this case to be " officers of 
the United States " — at best a strained construction — nor 
is it easy to see any point in the reference to the second sec- 
tion of the civil rights act; for nowhere in that act was jury 
service named as one of the civil rights to be secured to all 
citizens " of every race and color " ; and debarring negroes 
from the jury could not be a violation of the act. 

Copies of the order were sent the governor with direc- 
tions that he distribute them to the judicial officers of the 
state and see that the order was " rigidly enforced 'V 
Throckmorton sent it out as required, and, in the circular 
letter accompanying it, admonished all officers that they 
should earnestly and diligently discharge their duties in 
order to secure a faithful and efficient administration of the 
laws. However, he stated that in view of the difficulties 
that must result from an observance of the order he would 
transmit a copy of it to the President for his consideration. 
In his letter to the President, May 2d, he stated that if the 
law should prove to be in accordance with the laws of the 
United States, it should be complied with without question ; 
but, if otherwise, it was in the interest of justice that proper 
orders be issued for its discontinuance. He also pointed out 
that the federal judges in Texas had ruled that the petit 
jurors of their courts were not required to take the iron- 
clad test oath; and he stated the qualifications of jurors 
under the Texas law. 2 Finally, he insisted that the enforce- 

1 Griffin to Throckmorton, Exec. Corres., quoted in full in Throck- 
morton's Address. 

2 The juror must be over twenty-one years of age; a white citizen, 
— of the state twelve months, of the county six months ; a householder 



158 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ I5 8 

ment of the order would necessarily stop the operation of 
the courts in many sections of the state. 1 

As might have been expected, this order threw the courts 
into the greatest confusion. The governor's office was 
flooded with letters from the county and district judges re- 
citing their difficulties and asking for further information 
and advice. One question that arose immediately was 
whether the order set aside the qualifications required by 
state law or whether it was cumulative in effect — that is, 
whether taking the test oath was to be only an additional 
qualification, so that it would not be necessary to go back 
of the county jury list already provided. Several judges 
were inclined to act upon this latter interpretation, which 
was supported by the governor, and which, as it developed, 
General Griffin himself had expected to be followed. 2 

This view, however, resulted practically in disqualifying 
most of the white population by requiring the test oath; 
and in disqualifying nearly all of the negroes and most of 
the remaining whites by the demands of the state law. In 
consequence judge after judge reported that he had been 
unable to find full juries, and that except for such business 
as could be transacted without a jury, the work of the court 
had stopped. 3 Some few were able to get juries in certain 

in the county, a freeholder in the state; and eligible to vote for mem- 
bers of the legislature. Negroes it will be seen, were debarred. This 
was by an act of 1858. — See Gammel, Laws of Texas, IV, p. 1076. 

1 Executive Records, loc. cit., p. 323; also in Throckmorton's Address. 

2 R. A. Reeves to Throckmorton, May 8 ; John G. Good to Throck- 
morton, May 11; J. J. Holt to Throckmorton, May 13; Whitmore to 
Throckmorton, May 14; MSS. in Exec. Corres.; excerpt from Flake's 
Bulletin in Weekly Austin Republican, July 4, 1867; Throckmorton to 
Whitmore, Executive Records, Register Book 85, p. 115; Griffin to 
Sheridan, Sen. Exec. Doc. 40 C., 1 s., no. 14, p. 210. 

8 Various communications, Reeves, Templeton, Ector, Holt, Harri- 
son, Good, Whitmore, Storey, Perkins, et al. to Throckmorton, MSS. 
in Exec. Corres. 



1 59 ] THE UNDOING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT 1 c > g 

counties of their districts, but not in others. Some sug- 
gested that the right to serve be extended to all registered 
persons, though this involved a departure from the state 
law. 1 Others, however, refused to do this because, in sub- 
stituting disqualified for qualified jurors, they must disre- 
gard their oath of office, and, ceasing to be officers of the 
state, become mere agents of the military power, thrusting 
upon the citizens jurors who were irresponsible, ignorant, 
and incompetent, in cases affecting rights of property, life, 
and liberty. 2 The conservative newspapers denounced the 
order as full of mischief and danger. The Texas Repub- 
lican, May ii, 1867, claimed that forty-nine-fiftieths of the 
white men of the state would be disqualified for jury service, 
and that the result would be to throw " the lives and liberty, 
as well as the property of the people into the hands of the 
negroes, who were themselves considered so imbecile as to 
require especial guardians in the shape of Bureau officers 
and supervising agents ". Flake's Bulletin, on the other 
hand, asserted that under the old system it had proved im- 
possible to secure convictions for murder, especially of 
unionists, and that it had been decided by the commanding 
general, " after consultation with the highest jurists of the 
state that " the most simple, prompt, and direct remedy 
would be to compose juries of loyal men ". 3 This state- 
ment was evidently inspired by Griffin, who wrote Sheridan 
that the jury order was only " an attempt to open the courts 
of Texas to loyal jurors for the protection of all good citi- 
zens ". 4 

1 Thos. Harrison to Throckmorton, May 14, Jas. G. Storey to 
Throckmorton, May 18, 1867, MSS. ibid. 

2 S. W. Perkins to Throckmorton, May 22, 1867, MS. ibid. 

3 Excerpt in Weekly Austin Republican, July 4, 1867. 

4 Sen. Exec. Doc, loc. cit., pp. 209-210. 



160 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ T 6o 

But whatever the motive or the justification, it is certain 
that the confusion and demoralization wrought in the court 
system by this " Jury Order " was responsible in a large 
degree for the undoubted increase of lawlessness in the latter 
part of 1867; although other causes, to be mentioned later, 
contributed to that end. The order seems to have remained 
in force until September 28th, when Sheridan's successor, 
General Mower, ordered that only persons registered as 
voters under the reconstruction laws should be eligible as 
jurors. The test oath was no longer required. 1 This 
greatly widened the class of persons from which jurors 
could be drawn; and though it included all negroes, it ad- 
mitted most of the whites also, and was less dangerous than 
Griffin's order. 

Whatever the part they played in launching the Jury 
Order, it is not difficult to detect the hand of the local radi- 
cal leaders in the series of controversies into which the gov- 
ernor and the military officials were now plunged. One 
of these disagreements arose out of an act of the recent 
legislature. The constitutional convention of 1866 had 
provided for reducing the number of judicial districts and 
redistricting the state, for the sake of economy, and because 
the populated area of most of the western counties had 
shrunk before the continuous attacks of Indians. In pur- 
suance of the plan there outlined, the legislature had abol- 
ished five districts — namely, the fourth, fifth, seventh, 
eleventh, and seventeenth — and had enlarged and renum- 
bered the rest. It so happened that, in two of the districts 
abolished, the judges and attorneys were Union men, in 
the other three the officials were ex-Confederates. 2 Three 

1 Special Orders no. 151, copy in Exec. Corres. 

2 See statement of J. L. Haynes to Griffin, Sen. Ex. Doc, loc. cit., 
pp. 221-222. 



t6i] THE UNDOING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT I 6 I 

other Union men were left untouched, but the radical press 
seized upon the fact that " loyalists " had been deprived of 
office, and protests were lodged with Griffin and Sheridan. 
On June ioth, the latter issued an order annulling the act 
which had abolished the fourth and eleventh districts, and 
reinstating Judges Thomas H. Stribling and W. P. Bacon, 
who, being " strong Union men ", had been set aside solely 
" on account of their political opinions, regardless of the 
public interest ". 1 Throckmorton immediately called the at- 
tention of the President to all the facts in the history of the 
case, pointed out that Sheridan's order did not restore the 
three other districts or the judges who had been elected in 
them, and showed how great would be the confusion re- 
sulting from such action. Pie took advantage of the oppor- 
tunity further to show, by orders and communications which 
he enclosed, how the military of all ranks were constantly 
interfering with the action of the civil courts, requiring 
judges and attorneys to dismiss prosecutions for criminal 
offenses, and in some cases destroying court records and 
papers. He was careful to admit the power of the military 
commanders under the acts of Congress to withdraw cases 
from the civil courts, but questioned their right to dismiss 
cases without trial. 2 In this particular the governor 
stated his contention with skill and discrimination, and per- 
haps a close and narrow construction of the acts of Con- 
gress would sustain him; but the intention of that body to 
give the military supreme control over all civil processes 
was too clear to leave hope of effective support to Throck- 
morton from the President. 

By this time the process of registration of voters for the 
future elections was in full swing. The state had been 

1 Special Orders no. 65, ibid. Also printed in Throckmorton's Ad- 
dress. 

2 Executive Records, loc. cit., p. 340; also in Throckmorton's Address. 



162 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [162 

divided into fifteen registration districts, comprising from 
six to eleven counties each; and over each district were 
placed two supervisors. In each sub-district, generally a 
county, was a board of three registrars, which was to move 
from place to place in the county in order to facilitate the 
registration of voters. Upon completion of registration 
within the sub-district the registrars were to make out lists 
showing the total number of voters registered, the number 
of colored voters, the number of rejected applications for 
registration, and the reasons for the rejection; and finally 
to state whether they had reason to believe that all the legal 
voters in the sub-district had been registered, and, if not, 
the reasons for the belief. 1 In many counties considerable 
difficulty was experienced in securing for supervisors, regis- 
trars, and clerks, whites who could take the test oath re- 
quired of all officials, and it was generally necessary to place 
negroes upon the boards; but the latter were in no way 
discriminated against, and quite frequently, it seems, they 
were appointed when whites were available. The work pro- 
ceeded slowly, for although the freedmen were generally 
eager to exercise their new prerogative, many of the eligible 
white conservatives held back, sometimes because of indif- 
ference, sometimes because of repugnance to the policy of 
Congress, sometimes because they disliked to appear before 
a board of negroes. The governor and the conservative 
press generally urged upon all white citizens the " solemn 
duty " of registering in order that they might still have 
some share in the affairs of the state, which would otherwise 
fall entirely into the hands of the radicals and negroes. 2 

Soon, however, arose complaints that many persons ap- 
parently eligible under the laws were denied the privilege 

1 Circular no. 16, May 16, 1867, in Exec. Corres. 

2 Galveston Tri-W eekly News, June 9, 1867 ; Texas State Gazette, 
July 13, 1867. 



163] THE UNDOING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT ^ 

of registration. At Galveston, for instance, the board was 
accused of denying registration to persons who had sup- 
ported the Confederacy but had never previously taken an 
oath to support the Constitution of the United States. 1 
The editor of the Galveston News was rejected because he 
had once been mayor of Galveston, the only office he ever 
held, and had later given aid and comfort to the rebellion. 
When he insisted that he was not disfranchised by the law, 
the board replied that he was by their instructions ; " nor 
did they refer to the law but to their instructions for their 
authority ". 2 It developed upon inquiry that every one who 
had held an office from the highest to the lowest was thereby 
disqualified, if he had later supported the Confederacy. 
This was directly ignoring the construction of the law 
enunciated by the Attorney-General of the United States, 
and in defiance of the instructions given the military com- 
manders by the President on June 20th. 3 

In fact, Sheridan had been acting upon his own construc- 
tion of the law, and distrusting Johnson and Stanbery, 
continued, with Grant's connivance, so to do. Early in 
April, when about to begin registration in Louisiana, he 
had asked Grant for instructions as to who were eligible for 
registration. The question was submitted to the Attorney- 
General and Grant told Sheridan to go on giving his own 
interpretation of the law in the meantime. The latter im- 
mediately drew up instructions for his registrars, employ- 
ing the most stringent interpretation by applying the widest 
possible construction of the term " executive or judicial 
officer of a state ". 4 When he had received the Attorney 

1 Communication from "J. S." in Galveston News, June 9, 1867. 
*Ibid., July 14, 1867. 

8 See Sen. Ex. Doc., loc. cit., pp. 262-287. Richardson, Messages and 
Papers, vol. vi, p. 552. 

4 Sen. Ex. Doc, loc. cit., pp. 196, 199-200. 



164 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[164 



General's opinion, Sheridan complained to Grant of its 
embarrassing effects upon his " just course ", and asked if 
he should regard it as an order. He received the reply that 
it had not been issued in the manner of an order and that 
he should enforce his own construction of the law until 
ordered to do otherwise. 1 

These instructions or memoranda were not published and 
were evidently intended for secret use. Later, when Griffin 
began the work of registration in Texas, they were trans- 
mitted to his registrars also. It was impossible, however, 
to keep them secret, and as soon as Throckmorton discov- 
ered that the registrars were making use of them, he wrote 
General Griffin asking for copies of his instructions for 
guidance of registration. The commander disingenuously 
sent copies of other orders, none of them in the remotest 
degree related to the memoranda in actual use. Thereupon 
the governor sent a copy of the memoranda which had come 
into his possession, and asked if they met with his approba- 
tion. 2 Griffin made no reply, and to that extent displayed 

1 Sen. Ex. Doc, loc. cit., pp. 236-237. 

2 Throckmorton's Address. — The memoranda ran as follows: 
" Memoranda of disqualifications for the guidance of the boards of reg- 
istration under the military bill passed March 2, 1867, and the act of 
Congress supplementary thereto, passed March 23, 1867: 

1. Every person who has acted as United States Senator or Rep- 
resentative. 

2. All who have acted as electors of President or Vice-President. 

3. Every person who has held any position in the army or navy of 
the United States. 

4. All persons who held any position under the United States in 
which they were required to take an oath before they entered upon the 
duties of office ; such as officers in the custom houses, post offices, mint, 
judges, and all officers of the United States court, United States 
marshals, and deputies. 

5. All who have held any office in any state under the constitution 
and laws in force prior to February 1, 1861, such as governor, state 
senator or representative, secretary of state, treasurer, comptroller, 



165] THE UNDOING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT 



discretion ; for it would have been difficult even for a lawyer 
to have argued for the construction which he and Sheridan 
placed upon these acts of Congress, and Griffin had the dis- 
advantage of not being a lawyer. This, be it remembered, 
was before the second Supplementary Act of July 19th, 
which was designed to relieve the military commanders, 
particularly those of the Fifth District, of any embarrass- 
ment from excess of radical zeal. 

It was daily becoming more and more difficult for the 
governor and other civil officials to continue friendly rela- 
tions with the military authorities ; and the Texas Radicals 
were doing their full share towards widening the breach. 

auditor, commissioner of land office, surveyors and deputy survey- 
ors, judges of courts, county commissioners, county treasurers, justices 
of peace, clerks of courts and deputies, sheriffs and deputies, constables 
and deputies, tax collectors, assessors, coroners, police jurors, auctioneers, 
pilots, harbor masters, recorders of conveyances and mortgages, county 
recorders, notaries public, and all commissioned officers in state 
militia; any person who has acted as mayor of any town or city, treas- 
urer, comptroller, recorder, alderman, assessor, tax collector, admin- 
istrator of the charity hospital, member of the board of health, com- 
missioner of elections and his clerks, chief of police, lieutenant of 
police, town or city marshal, and all who have served on the police 
force, wardens and underwardens of county prisons or work houses; 
board of school directors, city surveyors and deputies, city attorney 
and assistant attorneys, superintendent of public schools, inspectors 
of tobacco, flour, beef, and pork, weighers and measurers, managers 
and superintendents or directors of asylums for deaf, dumb, blind, and 
lunatic, and sextons of cemeteries. 

6. All who in 1862 or 1864 registered themselves as aliens, or who 
obtained protection papers from representatives of foreign powers. 

Any person who at any time held any of the above offices and who 
afterward engaged in rebellion against the United States, or gave aid 
and encouragement to the enemies thereof, is disqualified from voting." 

There followed a series of questions to be asked applicants for re- 
gistration as to whether they had held any of the above named offices 
and had afterward been in any branch of the Confederate service. A 
slightly variant form of the above, designed for Louisiana, is printed 
in Sen. Exec. Doc, loc. cit., and in Fleming, op. ext., vol. i, p. 433-435. 



166 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ x 66 

The invalidation of the state government and the provision 
for registering the negroes as voters had been the signal for 
active reorganization in the Radical camp for the purpose of 
bringing the colored brethren into line and teaching them 
their duties and obligations to the party that had done so 
much for them. Organizations of the Union League, 1 de- 
voted to this lofty purpose, sprang up wherever there were 
negroes to vote and " loyalists " to lead them. Throughout 
the latter half of April, May, and June loyal mass meetings 
were held everywhere for the purposes of effecting local 
organizations, arousing enthusiasm, and choosing delegates 
to a state convention at Houston. In practically all of them 
resolutions were passed pledging support to the recent legis- 
lation of Congress and the military officials, and declaring 
for full equality for all persons in civil and political rights. 
The freedmen greatly predominated in all of these meetings 
and exercised their new privileges with the greatest enthu- 
siasm. 2 The state convention assembled at Houston early 
in July, with representatives from twenty-seven counties 
present. Ex-Governor E. M. Pease, who had recently re- 
turned from the North, presided. Like many others of his 
party, he had greatly changed his views since twelve months 
before when he had declared his opposition to negro suf- 
frage. A state Republican party was organized ; but the res- 
olutions adopted were fairly moderate in tone. They ad- 

1 The first reference to the Union League in Texas that the author 
has seen is in a letter, dated April 26, 1867, from A. M. Boatright, 
who signs as " correspondent of the Union League of Goliad County," 
to General Griffin, complaining that there were " rebbles " in authority 
who should be replaced at once with good Union men. — MS. in Exec- 
Corres There are numerous references to the League thereafter. 

2 For accounts of these mass meetings see Flake's Bulletin, South- 
ern Intelligencer, and Austin Republican, for April, May, June, and 
July, 1867. The party name adopted varied, — Unionists, Unionist 
Republicans, Republicans and Radicals. 



167] THE UNDOING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT rfy 

vocated free common schools and free homesteads out of 
the public lands to all without distinction of color, thanked 
the military for protection afforded to the people, declared 
the Conservatives to be disloyal and to have manifested a 
" contumacious spirit of hostility " in the opposition shown 
to the measures of Congress but denied that the Republicans 
had ever sought to have the Federal government deal 
harshly with them. 1 

During all this time the Conservatives had done nothing, 
for there was nothing that they could do but await the issue. 
It was not long in coming. The Radicals were not con- 
tent with perfecting their organization and registering their 
followers in preparation for the elections to the convention. 
Insisting that the safety of loyal citizens and the proper 
carrying-out of the laws of Congress necessitated putting 
the control of the state into the hands of loyalists, and that 
the rewards of office should be reserved only for the faith- 
ful, they began a systematic attack upon the whole line of 
the state's officials, but concentrated chiefly against Throck- 
morton. A group of Radical leaders established at Austin 
a paper which speedily became the party organ, the Austin 
Republican. From its first issue on June 1, 1867, it leveled 
its guns against the governor. Through the Radical press 
and letters which poured into military headquarters from 
Union Leagues, his administration was accused of incom- 
petency, inefficiency, and rank disloyalty. It was asserted, 
and Griffin eagerly reiterated the charge, that Throck- 
morton encouraged the oppression and murder of Union 
men and refused to do anything toward having the crimi- 
nals punished. 2 It is but justice here to say that a careful 
examination and review of all the evidence accessible does 

1 See account of the convention in Weekly Austin Republican, 
July 11, 1867. 

2 Ibid., July 25 ; Sen. Ex. Doc, lot: cit, p. 194. 



1 68 RECONSTR UCTION IN TEX A S [ 1 68 

not in any way justify these accusations. Many cases cited 
and complained of had not even come to the governor's 
attention until brought up by the military, for the simple 
reason that the complaints had been filed not with the civil 
officials but with the military instead. In all other cases 
which came to him he showed the most evident anxiety to 
have the law enforced. 1 

By the middle of July it had become evident that the gov- 
ernor would soon be set aside. Griffin and Sheridan both 
wished it and only awaited full authority to take the step. 
Some small officials had gone already. 2 On July 19th the 
second supplementary Reconstruction Act became a law 
and bestowed full power of removal and appointment 
upon the military commanders, freeing them at the same 
time from any obligation to respect the opinions of the At- 
torney-General in construing the law. 3 The Radical press 
confidently prophesied the sweeping out of the whole ad- 
ministration. 4 One of his own party, a Conservative-Union- 
ist, B. H. Epperson, who had remained at Washington 
since winter, wrote Throckmorton with regard to the effect 
of the new act of Congress : 

1 Exec. Records, Register Book 85, pp. 9, 17, 24, 35, 37 and passim. 
Subsequent to March 2 Throckmorton issued twenty-six proclamations 
for the arrest of murderers, of whom twenty-four were whites ; during 
the same time he issued seven pardons for homicide, six being to 
whites, five of whom, however, were convicted before 1861, and eigh- 
teen pardons for theft, etc., seven being to negroes. See Exec. Records, 
Register Book 281. It may be that this list is not complete, but the 
proportion will hold. 

2 On June 8, the entire police and detective force of Galveston was 
discharged by order of General Griffin. Several of the new appointees 
were freedmen. Flake's Daily Bulletin, June 9, 1867. 

3 U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. xv, p. 14; Fleming, op. cit., I, pp. 
415-418. 

4 See San Antonio Express, July 25, 1867; Austin Republican, July 
25, 1867. 



169] THE UNDOING OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT jftg 

I consider it a settled fact that your head goes off ; perhaps 
your decapitation will be completed before you read this letter. 
At all events it is but a question of time and the time is short. 
Pease has gone down to be at the proper place to supersede 
you. The program has been fixed up here, and a most desper- 
ate effort is to be made to radicalize the state. . . . The 
judiciary will go overboard, and in fact every office worth 
having in the state has to go into Radical hands. 1 

On July 30th Sheridan issued the following order : 

A careful consideration of the reports of Brevet Major Gen- 
eral Charles Griffin, U. S. Army, shows that J. W. Throck- 
morton, Governor of Texas, is an impediment to the recon- 
struction of that state under the law ; he is therefore removed 
from that office. E. M. Pease is hereby appointed Governor 
of Texas in place of J. W. Throckmorton, removed. He will 
be obeyed and respected accordingly. 2 

No official notification of the governor's removal was 
received at Austin for about a week; but the news had 
traveled rapidly and the State Gazette disgustedly chron- 
icled the " noisy demonstrations of joy made on Wednesday 
last [August 1st] by the negroes and a few Radicals, over 
the shameful degradation of the state ". On the 7th, Pease 
sent a polite note to Throckmorton, whose personal friend 
he was, enclosing the order, and asking if it would be con- 
venient for him to deliver the office and its records at ten 
o'clock next day. An equally polite answer was sent that 
this arrangement would be perfectly convenient, and on 
July 8th, therefore, Pease formally took possession and 
notified General Griffin that he had begun the discharge of 
his duties. 3 

1 July 14, 1867. MS. in private correspondence of Governor Throck- 
morton. 

2 Extract from Special Orders no. 105, copy in Exec. Corres. 

3 MSS. in private correspondence of Throckmorton and in Exec. 
Corres. 



iyo RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ i7 q 

The deposed governor immediately prepared an Address 
to the People of Texas, in the form of an elaborate review 
of his relations with the military officials, in refutation of 
the charge that he had been " an impediment to reconstruc- 
tion ". By quoting almost the entire correspondence, he 
made clear his own efforts to follow out the laws, aid the 
commanding general, and maintain the peace; and placed 
the onus of all the difficulties upon the military, whose harsh- 
ness in the matter of appointments and interference with 
courts and juries had thrown the whole civil administration 
into disorder and had aroused bitterness and apprehension 
in the hearts of the people. Finally, he urged the people 
to abide by the laws, however unjust they might regard 
them, to be kind to the negroes, to refute by their conduct 
the Radical charges of disloyalty, to register if allowed to 
do so, and to elect good Union men to the convention. 1 The 
Address was widely and favorably commented upon at the 
time, and was, in fact, more than a refutation of the charge 
made by Sheridan. 

1 The Address was printed by the Weekly State Gazette, Aug. 10, 
1867; by the Dallas Herald, Sept. 7, 1867; and as a pamphlet in 1873. 



CHAPTER VIII 



Radical-Military Rule 

i. Radical Politics and Factions 

It was, beyond question, exceedingly fortunate for Texas 
that, if Throckmorton must be removed, E. M. Pease should 
be his successor; for no other man among the Radicals, 
with the possible exception of A. J. Hamilton, combined to 
the same high degree his qualities of firmness, wisdom, and 
moderation. A native of Connecticut, but a citizen of Texas 
since 1835, he had taken an active part in public affairs for 
many years, and up to the eve of the war had been very 
popular, for his two administrations as governor, 1853- 
1857, were both progressive and successful; but in the 
stormy years that followed he cut himself off from public 
favor by an uncompromising opposition to secession and a 
constant adhesion to the Union throughout the war. How- 
ever, unlike most prominent Unionists, he remained quietly 
at his home in Austin during the struggle. The course of 
events since the war had not restored him to popular favor. 
From the first he had been identified with the party led by 
Governor Hamilton, and had gradually come into opposi- 
tion to President Johnson and into affiliation with the Radi- 
cals. Badly defeated by Throckmorton in 1866, he had 
joined the group of southern Radicals at Washington in the 
fight against the Johnsonian state governments. Now he 
returned in the guise, whether he desired it or no, of an ex- 
ultant victor over his own people, to supplant by military 
power the man whom they had preferred over him. He 
171] 171 



172 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[172 



was made to appear as the willing tool of a hated military 
despot, bartering the honor of the state for political power, 
and suspected in every action of the most unworthy motives. 
Truly, his position was in no way an enviable one. 

As was natural, Pease was judged more harshly by far 
than he deserved. He always insisted afterwards that he 
did not seek and did not want the provisional governorship, 
but that he could not refuse it when it was tendered without 
subjecting himself to the charge of being unwilling to give 
his aid to the state in a time of disorder and crisis. 1 It was 
well for Texas that he gave his aid even at the cost of his 
own political future, for he was the most moderate of all 
those who had the confidence of the military authorities; 
and, though he obediently followed out the measures of his 
superiors, his advice carried weight as Throckmorton's 
could not and saved the state from some of the worst con- 
sequences of a bitter and often mistaken partisanship. 

One of the first as well as one of the most troublesome 
questions with which he had to deal was that of recommend- 
ing to vacancies in the various state and county offices. For 
one reason or another a great many vacancies in elective 
offices had occurred during the last five months of Throck- 
morton's administration and many of them had remained 
unfilled, partly because of Griffin's distrust of the governor 
and the persons recommended by him, partly because of 
the scarcity of persons eligible according to Griffin's re- 
quirements and at the same time willing to accept office and 
its accompanying unpopularity. It was now the duty of 
Pease to find and recommend to Griffin, for he could not 
make the appointments himself, suitable persons to fill these 
vacancies, that is to say, Radicals who could take the test 

1 Message to Constitutional Convention of 1868, Convention Journal, 
p. 12. Also, his speech at Galveston, July 12, 1880 (printed by Mc- 
Kenna and Company, Galveston). 



173] RADICAL-MILITARY RULE ^3 

oath. In consequence, he was immediately overwhelmed 
with petitions, not always for offices already vacant, but 
more frequently for the removal of officials of " rebel " or 
anti-Congressional proclivities; for now it had become 
axiomatic with the Radicals that any person who opposed 
the Congressional plan of reconstruction was perforce a 
" rebel ", perhaps a traitor, no matter what had been his 
previous attitude toward secession or the Confederacy. 
General Griffin at once began the removal of county and 
district judges, in order to finish the work, begun by 
his jury order, of putting the courts into the hands of 
" loyal " men. The Conservative heads of the various de- 
partments of state administration — the attorney-general, the 
treasurer, the comptroller, and the land commissioner, all 
elective — had been allowed to remain in their offices, but 
they too went out within a month. 1 In every part of the 
state the local Radicals, agents of the Freedmen's Bureau 
or correspondents of the Loyal Union League, were busily 
forwarding petitions for the removal of local officers and 
recommending suitable successors. 2 In many cases, how- 
ever, it proved impossible to fill the vacancies thus created, 

1 By Special Orders, no. 160, August 27, General Griffin removed 
S. Crosby, land commissioner; W. L. Robards, comptroller; M. H. 
Royston, treasurer ; and W. M. Walton, attorney-general, " on ac- 
count of their known hostility to the general government"; and re- 
placed them with Joseph Spence as land commissioner, M. C. Hamilton 
as comptroller, Jno. T. Allen as treasurer, and Wm. Alexander as 
attorney-general. Order in Exec. Corres.; printed in Texas State 
Gazette, Sept. 7, 1867. 

2 Some of these petitions from the Union League associations are 
curious documents. One from Dallas County, asking for the removal 
of district and county officers, has about eighty signatures, practically 
all in the same handwriting as that of the petition. It meant of course, 
that the petitioners were nearly all negroes taking the first steps of 
their political tutelage, if indeed they had even authorized the use of 
their names. MS. in Exec. Corres. 



174 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[174 



sometimes because there were not enough competent Radi- 
cals to go around, sometimes because those who were com- 
petent would not accept the positions. A. H. Latimer, a 
prominent unionist of Red River County, could find " only 
one true loyal man " in Bowie County. 1 Another union- 
ist, Judge M. D. Ector, declared to Governor Pease that 
there were numerous vacancies in Shelby, San Augustine, 
and Harrison counties and that it was " practically impos- 
sible to find Union men to fill them, for the few who are 
qualified decline the positions ". 2 " There are not a dozen 
outspoken white Radicals in the whole Eighth Judicial Dis- 
trict," wrote Judge C. Caldwell. 3 An agent of the Bureau 
admitted that it was " impossible to find enough loyal men 
qualified to fill the offices " in Robertson and Milam counties ; 
and for that reason recommended that of the twenty-one 
officials in the former county, fourteen be retained, and of 
a like number in Milam, eight be retained. 4 A dozen 
similar statements, all from Radical sources, could be cited. 
Yet removals went on almost daily. The governor re- 
quested the removal of Judge J. J. Holt because, when ser- 
ious disturbances in Goliad and Victoria counties, both in 
his district, required action, the judge insisted that his court 
had been closed by the jury order. 5 The death of General 
Griffin, September 15th, in the midst of the scourge of 

1 A. H. Latimer to Lt. Kirkman, A.A.A. General, Aug. 15, 1867, ibid. 

2 Ector to Pease, Sept. 13, 1867 ; ibid. 

3 Caldwell to Pease, Aug. 20, 1867 ; ibid. 

*J. L. Randall, Sub. Ass't. Comnr., to General Griffin, Aug. 26, and 
Sept. 4, 1867. Ibid. 

5 Pease to Griffin, Sept. 5, 1867, ibid. Pease refused to believe that 
Holt could not get juries, because there had been a large registration 
in those counties. Not all qualified voters, however, could serve on 
juries, for the iron clad test oath was at that time required of the 
juror but not of the voter; and moreover, the requirements of the 
state law as to jurors was still in force. See supra, p. 157. 



1^5] RADICAL-MILITARY RULE ^ 

yellow fever that swept over the coast and far up into the 
interior of Texas that summer, did not stop the work of 
" purifying " the state. He was succeeded by General J. J. 
Reynolds, a less able and also a less scrupulous man, who 
was soon credited by the Radical organ, the Austin Repub- 
lican, with having swept out the " rebel " officials in over 
sixty counties. 1 

It was to be expected, doubtless, that these removals 
would take place. Both the governor and the military offi- 
cials felt that the progress of reconstruction would be facili- 
tated by putting the administration of the country, even in 
local matters, in the hands of those who were in sympathy 
with the Reconstruction Acts. Then, too, they were con- 
stantly urged on by many who were either solicitous for 
preferment or actuated by rancor against political or private 
enemies. Nor can it be doubted that the old prejudice 
against unionists and the new prejudice against Radicals 
was too often manifested in the acts of civil officials, and 
gave color to the charge that better protection was needed 
for " loyal " citizens. Nevertheless, it was not a good thing 
for society, at a time when a recent political upheaval made 
it necessary that every facility possible should be offered for 
the preservation of order, that nearly one-third of the county 
offices should be vacant, and that some districts should be 
entirely without any peace officers. Texas in those days 
suffered greatly from violence even under normal condi- 
tions, and indeed retained some of the turbulence of frontier 
society for two decades longer ; but it is pretty clear that the 
crime and disorder that reached such an alarming state 
during the administration of Pease, was due in a large 
measure to the mistaken policy of the military authorities. 

Conditions had been improving up to April, 1867. 
Throckmorton had made earnest efforts to suppress lawless- 

1 Issue of Nov. 13, 1867. 



176 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[176 



ness, and had accomplished much; but with the issuance 
of the jury order which crippled the courts; with the con- 
stant interference, more frequent now, of the military in 
civil matters ; and with the growth of party rancor, the law- 
less element seized upon its opportunity and an increase 
of crime was noticeable nearly everywhere. Then came, 
after the change of governors, the further crippling of the 
state's authority by the bestowal of vacated offices upon un- 
popular men, who were viewed not as representatives of the 
state but as the minions of an arbitrary military power, and 
by allowing to remain vacant many positions of the greatest 
importance to the peaceful ordering of society. Another 
complication in the southern and eastern sections was the 
confusion and demoralization wrought by the yellow fever 
scourge. Under all these conditions it was next to impos- 
sible for the officials to maintain order, not because the peo- 
ple were " disloyal " to the United States government, as 
the Radicals asserted, but because the very foundations of 
order had been taken away. 

Hardly had the Radicals got control of the state adminis- 
tration when they fell out among themselves over the ques- 
tion of the validity of the constitution and legislation of 
1866. Governor Pease had assumed that all state laws not 
in contravention o*f the acts of Congress or the Federal 
constitution, and not specifically annulled by order of the 
military commander, were, though provisional in character, 
actually in force and binding upon all state officials and citi- 
zens. In this he followed the example of Governor Ham- 
ilton in 1865, and had the express sanction of the military 
officials themselves. 1 It was clearly the only course that 
could have been taken in view of expediency, common sense, 
and custom. However, it soon developed that a small group 
of ultra Radicals at Austin, some of them members of the 

1 Sheridan, General Orders, no. 1, March 19, 1867. 



177] RADICAL-MILITARY RULE 

governor's own official family, had conceived the notion that 
the Reconstruction Acts of Congress not only had destroyed 
the existing state government but also had rendered its acts 
null and void from their inception. According to this 
strange theory all legislation of whatever character since 
March i, 1861, was swept away, every public or private 
relation based upon any law enacted during this period was 
invalidated. The consequences of such a condition, the 
doctrinaire authors of the theory themselves, perhaps, did 
not clearly see; but, even granting the saving application 
of the constitution of 1845, society must have been thrown 
into the greatest confusion and uncertainty without advanc- 
ing any necessary purpose of state policy. 

The first intimation of the existence of such a body of 
doctrine is in a scathing editorial in the Austin Republican, 
October 23, 1867, denouncing the state supreme court for 
rendering a decision to the effect that the state constitution 
of 1866 and the laws passed under the authority thereof, in 
so far as not abolished, modified, or superseded by the 
United States or its officers, were valid and binding. 1 The 
Republican at this time was owned chiefly by local poli- 
ticians, of whom Morgan C. Hamilton, a brother of Gov- 
ernor A. J. Hamilton, was one. Soon afterwards control 
of the paper passed into the hands of the moderates sup- 
porting Pease. It was not long before the actual breach 
came. Just before this, M. C. Hamilton, as comptroller, 
had refused to issue to certain state officials salary warrants 
on the treasury in accordance with an act of the recent 
legislature appropriating money for the support of the state 
government for the years 1867 and 1868. The opinion of 
the attorney-general, Alexander, was invoked and he sus- 

1 This seems to have been the case of L. S. Shrader vs. The State 
of Texas, 30th Texas Reports, 386. See alsc Smith vs. Harbert, and 
Luter vs. Hunter, ibid., pp. 669 and 688. 



i 7 8 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[I 7 8 



tained Hamilton. 1 Thereupon, the governor, in order to 
fix the law, issued, on October 25th, with the consent of 
General Reynolds but against the protest of Hamilton, 
Alexander, and Allen, 2 a proclamation declaring the con- 
stitution of 1866 and the statutes passed in conformity 
thereto, with certain exceptions, to be " rules for the govern- 
ment of the people of Texas and the officers of the civil gov- 
ernment ". 3 Alexander promptly resigned and sent in to 
General Reynolds a lengthy protest against the proclama- 
tion, chiefly to the effect that the constitution of 1866 had 
never become valid because it had never been accepted 
either by Congress or by General Sheridan, and that the 
constitution of 1845 should be Held as the real one. 4 Hamil- 
ton also protested to General Mower, then commanding the 
Fifth Military District, rehearsing much the same argu- 
ments used by Alexander; but he did not resign, for which 
display of " lack of taste " he was severely criticised by his 
former organ, the Republican. 5 Reynolds transmitted to 
Mower a copy of the proclamation and Alexander's pro- 
test against it ; Mower agreed with Pease and submitted an 
opinion from J. P. Boyd, his attorney for civil affairs, who 
also sustained Pease. 6 

1 D. J. Baldwin to Pease, Oct. 23, 1867; MS. in Exec. Corres. For 
Alexander's opinion, see appendix to Convention Journal, 1868-9, Ist 
Session, pp. 968-977. 

2 M. C. Hamilton to General Mower, Oct. 29, 1867; in Austin 
Republican, Nov. 13, 1867. 

3 Annual Cyclopedia, 1867, p. 715. 

4 Austin Republican, Nov. 16, 1867; also appendix to Convention 
Journal, 1868, ist Session, 962-968. 

5 Issue of Nov. 13, 1867. 

6 Mower, by Col. W. T. Gentry, to Reynolds, Nov. 23, 1867; MS. 
in Exec. Corres. Boyd held that only laws passed in hostility to the 
United States government were null and void ab initio. The others, 
as the one in question, were only voidable at the will of the district 



179] 



RADICAL-MILITARY RULE 



179 



Though defeated, the ab initio Radicals did not give up 
the fight. They managed to get control of the local branch 
of the Union League long enough to formulate resolutions 
demanding of the state Republican party that new planks 
be added to the Houston platform : 1 one, declaring that 
emancipation of all slaves should date from January 1, 
1863; one, that all ex-rebels should be disfranchised; an- 
other, that all legislation in Texas since 1861 had been 
null and void from the beginning and should be so con- 
sidered. 2 The Austin Republican severely arraigned the 
" pronunciamiento " of the " misanthropic old bachelors " 
who were " attempting the formation of a negro party ", 
and declared their resolutions " infamous because they 
proposed 

to disfranchise all the whites of the state except a few of the 
elect, to strip them of their property, to exact back hire for 
negroes for the years 1863 to 1865 ; in a word to place all 
political power in the hands of the negroes and then vote them- 
selves all the property in the state. . . . They are trying to 
lead the colored race to destruction. We do not believe that 
fifty whites or five hundred colored men in the state will en- 
dorse them, even with this stupendous bribe. 3 

Ex-Governor A. J. Hamilton, who returned to Texas at 
about this time as associate justice of the state supreme 
court, threw the whole weight of his influence into the 
scale against his brother and on the side of Pease. 4 These 
two brothers, so unlike in so many ways, soon became the 

commanders. The distinction between " void absolutely " and " void- 
able" had been sanctioned by Congress and maintained in practice. 

1 Supra, p. 166. 

2 Printed in Austin Republican, Dec. 18, 1867. 

3 Ibid., Dec. 25, 1867. 

4 See speech of A. J. Hamilton, ibid., Dec. 18, 1867. 



180 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ r 8o 

leaders of the rival factions which were to fight two years 
longer for the control of the state. A. J. Hamilton became 
in a short time the candidate of the Republicans of Travis 
County to the coming constitutional convention. The ab 
initio wing bolted and nominated Morgan C. Hamilton, 
but he afterwards withdrew from the race in Travis and 
announced himself as a candidate from the neighboring 
county of Bastrop. The two came face to face again in the 
convention. 

2. Removal of Sheridan and Reversal of Military Policy 
by Hancock 

Hardly had the Radicals got firmly in control of the state 
administration through the sweeping changes effected by 
Sheridan, when they were deprived of the watchful oversight 
of that zealous partisan. He had for a long time given 
offensive evidence of his sympathy with the political enemies 
of the President and had exerted all his influence to wreck 
Mr. Johnson's reconstruction policy. In the quarrels which 
he had waged with the governors of Louisiana and Texas 
the latter had succeeded in enlisting the sympathy of the 
President, who was convinced that neither had attempted 
to thwart the execution of the laws of Congress. The arbi- 
trary and offensive manner in which Sheridan had exer- 
cised his authority, capped by the removal of Governors 
Wells and Throckmorton, further convinced Mr. Johnson 
that the testy general's presence in the South was itself an 
impediment to a peaceful and orderly reconstruction. 1 In 
spite, therefore, of the protests of Grant, with whom Sheri- 
dan was always a favorite, the President on August 17th 
ordered that General George H. Thomas should take the 
command of the Fifth Military District, and that Sheridan 



1 Washington correspondence of Boston Post, quoted in Houston 
Telegraph, Sept. 3, 1867. 



l8l] RADICAL-MILITARY RULE jgj 

should be sent to the upper Missouri. Grant, in issuing the 
order, endeavored to maintain Sheridan's policies by in- 
structing General Thomas to continue to execute all orders 
he should find in force in the district, unless authorized 
by the General of the Army to annul, alter, or modify them. 
Some ten days later, however, General Winfield S. Han- 
cock was substituted for Thomas, whose health was bad, 
and the President took occasion to direct that the new com- 
mander should exercise any and all powers conferred by 
Congress upon district commanders, thus intimating that 
he should have a free hand. 1 

Hancock did not proceed immediately to New Orleans, 
and the command devolved for the time upon General Grif- 
fin, who continued energetically along the lines that he and 
Sheridan had been following. Upon Griffin's death, Sep- 
tember 1 5th, he was succeeded by General James A. Mower, 
then in immediate command of Louisiana, who followed a 
more moderate policy, until Hancock assumed command at 
New Orleans, November 29th. Hancock had done bril- 
liant service as a corps commander during the war, and was 
popular in the North. He was, however, a Democrat, he 
disliked the Radical program, and strongly sympathized 
with the policies of the President. He believed that the 
white people of the South should carry through the pro- 
cess of reconstruction with as little interference on the part 
of the military as possible, and entertained the most cheer- 
ful view of the self-sustaining powers of the civil authority. 
In " General Orders, no. 40 ", announcing his assumption 
of command, he gave expression to this optimism and to his 
purpose to reverse the policies which Sheridan had followed. 

The General Commanding is gratified to learn that peace and 
quiet reign in this Department. It will be his purpose to preserve 

1 Report of Sec'y of War, House Ex. Docs., 40 C, 2 s., no. 1, pp. 
26-27. 



182 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



this condition of things. As a means to this great end he 
regards the maintenance of the civil authorities in the faithful 
execution of the laws as the most efficient, under existing 
circumstances. 

In war it is indispensable to repel force by force, and to over- 
throw and destroy opposition to lawful authority. But when 
insurrectionary force has been overthrown and peace estab- 
lished, and the civil authorities are ready and willing to per- 
form their duties, the military power should cease to lead, 
and the civil administration should resume its natural and 
rightful dominion. Solemnly impressed by these views the 
General announces that the great principles of American 
liberty still are the lawful inheritance of this people, and 
ever should be. The right of trial by jury, the [right of the 
writ of] habeas corpus, the liberty of the press, freedom of 
speech, and the natural rights of persons and the rights of 
property must be preserved. 

Free institutions, while they are essential to the prosperity 
and happiness of the people, always furnish the strongest in- 
ducements to peace and order. Crimes and offences com- 
mitted in this district must be referred to the consideration and 
judgment of the regular civil tribunals, and those tribunals 
will be supported in their lawful jurisdiction. Should there 
be violations of existing laws which are not inquired into by 
the civil magistrates, or should failures in the administration 
of the courts be complained of, the cases will be reported to 
these headquarters, when such orders will be made as may 
be deemed necessary. 

While the General thus indicates his purpose to respect the 
liberties of the people, he wishes all to understand that armed 
insurrections or forcible resistance to the law will be instantly 
suppressed by arms. 1 

This generous and enlightened policy could have been 
more successfully applied to Texas six months earlier when 

1 Report of Secretary of War for 1868, H. Ex. Docs., 40 C, 3 s., 
vol. i, p. 210. 



183] RADICAL-MILITARY RULE jg-j 

the administration of the civil authority was more unified 
and harmonious ; for in the present disorganization and con- 
fusion, when there was a total lack of sympathy and of con- 
fidence between the new Radical appointees on the one hand 
and the remaining Conservative officials, backed by the 
great mass of the people, on the other, there was small 
chance that it could be carried out in the spirit in which it 
was conceived. Hancock's determination ' to respect the 
regular civil tribunals seemed to threaten the powers of the 
new state administration and brought him at once into con- 
flict with Pease. 

The occasion was this. In October, 1867, a Union man, 
R. W. Black, had been murdered in Uvalde County, west 
of San Antonio. The accused parties had been arrested and 
confined in the county jail, when the district judge, G. H. 
Noonan, a Radical, suggested to Pease that they be tried 
by a military commission, for he thought it extremely doubt- 
ful whether they could be kept in confinement long enough 
to be tried before a civil court in this thinly populated dis- 
trict. Pease agreed and sent Noonan's letter with his en- 
dorsement to General Reynolds, who naturally referred the 
whole matter to his commanding officer. The governor 
had failed to state very clearly the grounds for his request, 
and Hancock replied that he could see no reason for violat- 
ing the principle laid down in his recent proclamation, more 
especially as it had not oeen charged that there was any in- 
disposition or unwillingness on the part of the local civil 
tribunals to try the case fairly. While it was not to be 
denied that the act of March 2d conferred upon the military 
commander of the district the power to organize military 
commissions for the trial of criminals, it was nevertheless 
an extraordinary power and from its nature should be ex- 
ercised only in the extraordinary event that the local civil 
tribunals were unwilling or unable to enforce the laws. 
From this, Hancock went on to read the governor a lecture 
upon the subject of civil liberties. 



184 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[l8 4 



At this time the country is in a state of profound peace. The 
state government of Texas, organized in subordination to the 
authority of the government of the United States, is in full 
exercise of all its proper powers. The courts, duly empowered 
. . . are in existence. . . . That the intervention of this power 
[the military] should be called for or even suggested by civil 
magistrates, when the laws are no longer silent and the civil 
magistrates are possessed, in their respective spheres, of all 
the powers necessary to give effect to the laws, excites the 
surprise of the Commander of the Fifth Military District. 

In his opinion it is of evil example and full of danger to the 
cause of freedom and good government that the exercise of 
military power through military tribunals . . . should ever be 
permitted when the ordinary powers of the existing state 
governments are ample enough for the administration of the 
law . . . [and the officers] are faithful in the discharge of 
their duties. 

If the state authorities were not able to secure the con- 
finement of the prisoners until trial, Hancock continued, 
sufficient military aid would be furnished; if the prisoners 
could not be fairly tried in that county, a change of venue 
should be made, as provided by the state law. The state 
possessed all the powers necessary for a proper and prompt 
trial of the prisoners, and a failure to exercise them must be 
due to the inefficiency of its officers ; and in the case of any 
such failure it would become his duty to remove the officers 
in question and to appoint others. And if these should fail 
and it should become apparent that not enough could be 
found in Texas who would enforce the law, it would then 
become necessary for him to employ military commissions; 
but until such a necessity should be shown to exist, it was 
not his intention to have recourse to them. 1 

1 See Report of Secretary of War for 1868, loc. cit., pp. 244-246. 
A printed copy of the letter is in Exec. Corres. 



185] RADICAL-MILITARY RULE ^5 

On January 17, 1868, Pease replied, dissenting on purely 
legal grounds from the declaration that the state govern- 
ment of Texas was " in full exercise of all its proper 
powers citing the language of the reconstruction acts of 
Congress to show that such civil government as Texas had 
was provisional only. He also dissented from the state- 
ment that the country was " in a state of profound peace 
insisting that, although there was no longer any organized 
resistance to the authority of the general government, the 
bitterness aroused in a large majority of the population by 
defeat, the loss of slaves, and the policy of Congress, to- 
gether with the demoralization wrought by civil war, had 
made it very difficult and often impossible to enforce the 
criminal laws. The greater part of his letter was an elab- 
oration of this assertion. Over one hundred homicides, 
Pease said, had occurred in Texas during the past twelve 
months, but less than one-tenth of the offenders had been ar- 
rested and half of these had not been tried. Even the mili- 
tary had often been unable to arrest the guilty parties, 
although the latter were well known. Often the civil offi- 
cials failed because not properly sustained by the citizens, 
and, after arrest, the criminals often escaped from custody 
because the jails were insecure and the counties were unable 
to furnish proper guards. Moreover, it often happened 
that grand juries failed to indict the accused and petit jurors 
to convict those finally brought to trial. All good citizens 
acknowledged there was but little security for life in Texas, 
and many of the loyal citizens had expressed the belief that 
it would have a good effect if military commissions could 
be employed to make examples in a few cases. In fact, the 
governor continued, the fear of military commissions had 
had a markedly deterrent effect upon crime until the publi- 
cation of General Hancock's General Order no. 40, Novem- 
ber 29th; since then there had been a very perceptible in- 



186 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [186 

crease of crime and manifestation of hostile feeling toward 
the government. 

If all these matters had been known to the Commanding Gen- 
eral of the Fifth Military District, his surprise might not have 
been excited that a civil magistrate of Texas, who is desirous 
of preserving peace and good order and to give security to 
person and life, should have applied to him as the chief 
officer to whom the government of Texas is entrusted by the 
laws of the United States, to do by military authority what 
experience has proved cannot be done by the civil officers of 
Texas with the limited means and authority with which they 
are invested by law. 1 

Evidently nettled at the tone of Pease's reply, which had 
been given to the newspapers, Hancock immediately tele- 
graphed Reynolds to ascertain " in the most expeditious 
manner " how many cases of crime were known to have 
occurred in Texas since his (Hancock's) assumption of 
command, how many had been reported by the civil author- 
ities to Reynolds, how many by Reynolds to Hancock, 
whose fault it was if criminals were running at large, and 
how many applications had been made by the governor 
upon the military for aid in arresting these criminals. 2 
Reynolds called upon Pease for such information as was in 
his possession, and it developed that only eighteen cases of 
homicide had been recorded for the period of Hancock's 
incumbency, that in no case had the governor appealed to 
the military to make an arrest, and that only four cases had 
been referred to the district headquarters; furthermore the 
eighteen homicides were all of such character as to pre- 

1 Pease to Lt. Col. W. G. Mitchell, in Austin Republican, Jan. 29, 
1868. Also in Report of Secretary of War for 1868, loc. cit., pp. 
268-271. 

2 Hancock to Reynolds, telegram, Jan. 30, 1868, in Exec. Corres. 



i8 7 ] 



RADICAL-MILITARY RULE 



I8 7 



elude the charge that they were attributable to General 
Orders no. 40. In a final reply, Hancock pointed out these 
facts, and proceded vigorously to deny that lack of respect 
for the government and prevalence of crime constituted a 
war status or necessitated military courts, and to criticise 
the governor for his implied censure of the civil authorities, 
most of whom were now his own political friends, and for 
the " indications of temper " and " intolerance of the opin- 
ions of others " in which his letter abounded. 1 

This closed the correspondence but not the controversy. 
A strong backing by the military was absolutely essential 
to the efficiency of the Radical state administration, and, 
while in respect to most matters General Hancock stood 
ready to help, all possibility of sympathetic co-operation had 
been destroyed by the recent unpleasantness, in which, 
moreover, the commander's thinly-veiled antagonism to the 
whole Radical program had become sharply revealed. He 
became at once the object of a most bitter attack. The charges 
of Pease that he was responsible for the general increase of 
lawlessness were violently reiterated by the Radical papers, 
and a clamor, echoed in the North, went up for his re- 
moval. However, his tenure was not directly affected by 
this, for when he was relieved of the command of the Fifth 
District, March 28, 1868, it was at his own request. 2 

There is abundant evidence that there had been an in- 
crease of disorder and crime during the winter; but that 
it was due to the pacific policy of Hancock is not so easily 
apparent. By far the greater part had in no way grown out 
of political animosities but flourished in the confusion that 
Sheridan, Griffin, and Reynolds had wrought among the 

1 Report of Secretary of War for 1868, loc. ext., pp. 262-268. 

2 This request was due to Grant's revocation of his orders removing 
certain members of the board of aldermen of New Orleans. See 
Report of Sec'y- of War for 1868, loc. cit., pp. 208, 222-232. 



i88 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[188 



courts and the peace officers. For this much the Radicals 
themselves were more directly responsible than their oppo- 
nents. It is true, on the other hand, that political enmity 
had increased, that conflicts, riots, and outrages were not 
unusual, and that the Conservatives, or " rebels " as their 
opponents uniformly called them, were more often, though 
by no means always, the aggressors; but it is still to be re- 
membered that the sources of this increase of bitterness are 
to be found in the humiliations forced upon the majority 
of the people in the execution of the Radical policy, and for 
this also the peculiar harshness of the military officials in 
the Fifth District were mainly responsible. 

Long before Hancock's assumption of command the State 
Gazette had complained of the " incendiary publications " 
of certain radical papers as tending to inflame the minds of 
the negroes and " to disturb the friendly relations which 
ought to exist between the races ". x Later, reverting to the 
subject, it called attention to the fact that nearly all negroes 
were carrying arms, especially pistols and long knives, and 
were displaying them on all occasions. 2 To this the Radi- 
cals replied that the blacks had as much right to carry 
weapons as the whites, a proposition that did not readily 
commend itself to the majority of the latter, who beheld 
in the armed negro, insolent and swaggering, puffed up with 
new and indigestible theories of equality, the most intoler- 
able of created beings. The appointment of negro regis- 
trars, who were frequently disposed to make too much of 
their new authority, increased the irritation. Negro politi- 
cal meetings, generally under the auspices of the local Union 
League, harangued by fervid orators and enlivened by par- 
ades and " Yankee " or " anti-rebel " songs, never failed 
to stir popular wrath. It is surprising, not that these de- 



1 September 28, 1867. 



2 November 20, 1867. 



RADICAL-MILITARY RULE 



monstrations sometimes resulted in riots, but that the riots 
were not more frequent. Probably the disturbance of this 
sort that aroused the most attention, though it seems to have 
been far from serious, occurred at Marshall on December 
30th, where a pistol shot fired by a drunken man broke up 
a negro gathering at the court house just after a radical 
speech by Judge C. Caldwell, of the state supreme court. 
The next day Caldwell, a man of excitable temperament, 
quarreled with the deputy sheriff, who seems to have been 
in no way responsible for the trouble, and obtained the ar- 
rest of nearly all of the local peace officers by the military. 
They were released, pending trial, by writ of habeas corpus, 
but before the trial came off they were again arrested, by 
orders apparently of General Reynolds. Hancock ordered 
that the writ be respected and that they should be tried by 
the civil courts, winning for himself renewed abuse from 
the Radical press. 1 Caldwell wrote wrathfully to Pease: 

None but a Johnson man would be tolerated here. He must 
cuss Congress and damn the nigger. . . . General Hancock is 
with the President politically and will only execute the letter 
of the law to escape accountability. . . . There is not an in- 
telligent rebel in all the land who does not so understand him. 
. . . He might regard such an interpretation of his course as an 
affront, but it does not alter the fact. 2 

Complaints of strong anti-radical sentiment came from 
various quarters. In Fannin County the numerous execu- 
tions issued for the public sale of landed property were 
paralyzing the country, the secessionists using the ma- 
chinery of the courts " to come down upon Union men with 

1 See Report of Sec'y of War for 1868, loc. ext., 253, 254-258 for 
Hancock's order and the report of special inspector, W. H. Wood. 
See accounts in Austin Republican, Jan. 8, 15, 1868. 

2 January 2, 1868, MS. in Exec. Corres. 



190 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [jgo 

much vim and apparent satisfaction ". 1 A rather panicky 
official wrote from Palestine of petty persecutions he suf- 
fered there and declared his belief that there was a secret 
organization of " rebels " there to murder all Radicals and 
office-holders of Unionist proclivities. 2 The Bureau agent 
at Sherman asserted that the people in that region had been 
well disposed until they had been persuaded by General 
Orders no. 40 that the civil authorities were superior to the 
military. Now there could be no protection or justice if 
the troops should be removed ; more cavalry was, in fact, de- 
sirable; and the Sherman Courier should be suppressed. 3 
Another Bureau agent in Dallas County reported that the 
" rebels " were very bitter and continually making threats. 4 
A more measured statement of the difficulties in the way of 
executing the criminal law in one district, was that of Judge 
Thornton, of Seguin. " Where the black man alone is con- 
cerned, there can be no cause of complaint ; if guilty, he will 
probably be convicted, if innocent, he will be acquitted." 
Such, however, was not the case with white men charged 
with the higher crimes of violence against the person. 

From my experience I regard it as almost an impossibility 
under existing arrangements to convict a white man of any 
crime, the punishment for which involves his life or his per- 
sonal liberty, where the proof or any material part of the proof 
depends upon the testimony of a black man, or where the 
violence has been against a black man; and as to convicting a 

1 Samuel Galbraith to E. M. Pease, Jan. 23, 1868, ibid. 

2 Judge Tunstall to Gen. J. J. Reynolds, March 26, 1868, ibid. 
Tunstall must have found comfort in office, nevertheless, for he was 
both county judge and postmaster, and later became secretary of the 
constitutional convention. 

8 Report of H. E. Scott, Sub. Ass't Commissioner, to J. J. Reynolds, 
March 31, 1868, ibid. 
4 Wm. H. Horton to Reynolds, Dec. 11, 1867, ibid. 



jgi] RADICAL-MILITARY RULE I9 j 

white man of the crime of murder in the first degree on any 
kind of testimony, it is almost out of the question. ... I can 
suggest no means by which I think the civil courts can remedy 
the evil without a change in the public sentiment of the 
country. 1 

Much of the evidence presented on the subject of lawless- 
ness is of a most partisan and untrustworthy character. A 
noteworthy instance of the way in which facts were dis- 
torted for political purposes is to be found in what purports 
•to be the report of the district clerk for Blanco County — 
printed in the Austin Republican, March 4th, and copied by 
the New York Times, March 18, 1868 — of the state of the 
criminal docket of that county. In brief the statement as 
printed was that since June, 1865, the grand juries had 
issued 178 indictments, of which 83 were for murder and 
61 for theft and robbery, while the registered vote was only 
120, due to the number of murders. The clerk, however, 
indignantly declared that his report had been falsified, that 
not a single murder had been committed in Blanco since the 
date given, but that all of the 83 indictments had been re- 
turned by " loyal " juries for the killing of seven " bush- 
whackers " during the war, and that most of the other 
offences charged had likewise been committed before June, 
1865. The small number of registered voters was due, he 
declared, to the ignorance and politics of the registrars. 2 

No county or district in the state, however, was wholly 
free from these disorders, and though they seem to have 
been most prevalent in the north and east, all sources of 
information fully attest that they were quite too numerous 
everywhere. Yet it may not be amiss to repeat here that the 
evidence fails to show that more than a very small per- 

1 J. J. Thornton to Pease, Feb. 10, 1868, MS. in Exec. Corves. 

2 San Antonio Daily Herald, June 10, 1868. 



192 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[192 



centage of the cases of actual violence at this time originated 
in differences of political opinion. The continuous and pe- 
culiarly offensive activity of branches of the Union League 
and the Grand Army of the Republic among the negroes 
with the view of securing political control through the black 
vote, had brought into existence the counter organization 
of the Ku Klux Klan. This last had but recently appeared 
in Texas ; it could not have been very extensive as yet, nor 
did it deserve the sinister reputation that it later acquired; 
but it grew rapidly both in membership and reputation 
during the following summer. Its operations, however, 
had from the first called forth the bitterest invectives from 
its enemies, who were quick to see its dangerous possibili- 
ties and to threaten retaliation. The Austin Republican de- 
clared that 

the Union League and the Grand Army have learned many 
valuable lessons from the Rebels and it will not take them 
long to learn another. Their organization is as perfect as that 
of the Ku Klux Klan, and if driven to extremities they can do 
as effective work. 

The radical papers and politicians continued to charge all 
their troubles to Hancock's encouragement of " disloyal 
malignancy ", and appealed to the coming convention to do 
something to stop the " saturnalia of blood 'V The matter 
of lawlessness was, in fact, one of the first things taken up 
by the convention, and it will be necessary to revert to the 
subject again in narrating the history of that body. We 
must now turn our attention to the preparations for as- 
sembling this convention, which was to carry out the will of 
Congress and of the " loyalists " of Texas. 

1 The Austin Republican, April 1, and 22, May 13, and 20, 1868; 
Exec. Corres., passim, for spring of 1868. Unreasoning partisanship 
could go no further than to call a man with Hancock's record a " cop- 
perhead " and " rebel ", yet it was done habitually. 



193] 



RADICAL-MILITARY RULE 



193 



It will be remembered that the process of registration of 
the voters had been begun by General Griffin early in the 
summer of 1867, an d that the registrars had been governed 
by secret memoranda which rigidly excluded many citizens 
who believed themselves entitled to registration under the 
law. The work went on slowly from May to the end of 
August, generally without interruption, though disturbances 
and threats against the registrars were reported from sev- 
eral places. By order of Griffin, the offices of registration 
were again opened in each district from September 23rd to 
28th to enable any who had been neglectful of the privilege 
to avail themselves of a last opportunity. 1 That a relatively 
small number of conservatives had registered was due in 
no way, therefore, to lack of time, nor was it wholly be- 
cause of the zeal of radical registrars, although the latter 
was no inconsiderable impediment; 2 

Many of the whites were at first plainly indifferent. 5 
Some believed that it was the settled purpose of Congress 
to shut them out of political power and that it would be use- 
less to try to participate in political affairs. Others held 

1 Special Orders, no. 163, Sept. 2, 1867, copy in Exec. Corres. 

2 " The boards in this district have been extremely rigid, and the - 
secessionists have been excluded almost without exception." — H. C. 
Pedigo (Radical) to Pease, Oct. 1, 1868, MS. in Exec. Corres. "In 
this district lawyers, on account of their oaths as attorneys, have been 
refused registration. The most impertinent questions have been asked 
of others — as to which party they sympathized with during the war, 
— if they would support the present and future laws of Congress, — if 
they think negroes their equals, etc. ; and if the answers were not in 
accordance with the notions of loyalty of these petty scoundrels, the 
parties were refused registration." — J. W. Throckmorton to Ashbel 
Smith, Sept. 21, 1867, printed in the State Gazette, Oct. 26, 1867. 

3 In Titus t County by the end of August only 500 out of 1200 had 
registered; in Fort Bend only no out of 500; and in Harris the total 
of whites was between 500 and 600 short. Other counties frequently 
made as bad showing. Houston Daily Telegraph, Sept. 5, 1867. 



194 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[194 



that participation in reorganization under the recent laws 
would be equivalent to consenting to them, and that the 
congressional radicals would be encouraged to make further 
demands in order to give the Texas radicals and negroes 
the full control of the state. Some seemed to think at first 
that by a refusal to register they could defeat immediate 
reorganization and await a better opportunity; meantime, 
military rule would be preferable to the radical-negro rule 
they would be subjected to under the Reconstruction Acts. 1 
It was soon discovered, however, that this plan would avail 
nothing, since the calling of a constitutional convention 
hinged not upon the number registered, but upon whether 
or no half of the total registration voted afterwards. Should 
the registration be left wholly to the radicals, who were sure 
to vote afterwards, there would be no doubt whatever that 
Texas would be " reconstructed ". Hence, the better way 
to defeat it would be to register all the voters possible and 
then to stay away from the election in the hope that less 
than half of the votes would be cast. Conservative papers 
unceasingly urged the whites to follow this plan. 2 The 
Houston Telegraph sounded the warning that unless the 
full strength of the whites should be enlisted there would 
be no reason to expect that Texas would not be completely 
in the hands of the negroes, who had as keen a relish for 
offices as had the whites, and who would satisfy their am- 
bition to own land by taxing it out of the hands of the pres- 
ent owners. 3 

1 See the public letter of J. W. Throckmorton to Ashbel Smith, 
loc. cit., in which opposition to immediate reconstruction is urged in 
the hope of a favorable reaction in the North. Danger of suffering 
harsher measures, especially confiscation, is declared a "phantom." 

2 The State Gazette, Oct. 26, 1867, gave a list of Conservative papers 
that advocated this plan, including all those of prominence except two, 
— the San Antonio Herald and the Clarksville Standard. The Austin 
Republican, Nov. 5, stated practically the same thing. 

8 Sept. 5, 1867. 



195] RADICAL-MILITARY RULE ^ 

Probably the known dislike of General Hancock for the 
extreme radical program and the news of the slight re- 
action against the radicals in the northern elections during 
the summer and fall of 1867, had much to do with the grow- 
ing opposition to reorganization according to the congres- 
sional program. But notwithstanding the accusations of 
his enemies, the commander showed no disposition to play 
the partisan. He refused to accede to a request of the con- 
servative leaders that he set aside the registration in Texas 
because of alleged errors of the boards of registrars. 1 In 
view of the fact that the boards of registrars were left un- 
changed, it could hardly be accounted a partisan act that on 
January nth he announced his dissent from the construc- 
tion given to the disqualifying clauses of the Reconstruc- 
tion Acts by Sheridan's " memoranda " and " questions ", 
and ordered that these boards should no longer be governed 
thereby, but should " look to the laws and to the laws 
alone which they were to interpret for themselves. 
Their decisions were to be final, except in cases appealed 
to the commander of the district. It is not probable that 
a very great number of cases were affected by this order, 
for in a considerable number of those that were appealed 
the boards were sustained. It would be hard to find fault 
with the reversal of their decisions in the other cases. 2 

On December 18, 1867, Hancock ordered an election to be 
held at each county seat from February 10th to 14th to de- 
termine whether a constitutional convention should be called 
and to select delegates to the same; and in accordance with 
the law he also ordered that the registry lists should be 

1 See his answer to John Hancock of Austin, in Report of Sec'y of 
War for 1868, I, 243; and comment on both letters in Austin Republi- 
can, Jan. 22, 1868. 

2 See for example a list of Hancock's decisions in Report of Sec'y 
of War for 1868, I, 239-241. 



196 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[196 



reopened and revised during the last five days of January. 1 
Voters of both parties who had neglected to register in the 
previous summer now hastened to add their names to the 
lists. Nearly five thousand were registered during this 
time, with the two parties about equally represented, for 
two-fifths were negroes. The total registration as stated in 
April by General Buchanan, Hancock's successor, was 
109, 1 30. 2 The number of those disqualified was not offi- 
cially estimated but was variously placed from 7500 to 
1 2, 000. 3 From the fact that the total white registration 
was very close to the total vote in the exciting Throck- 
morton-Pease campaign of 1866, it is evident that the 
number actually disfranchised was not as high as the Con- 
servatives themselves claimed. The proportion of negroes 
seems excessive in view of the census of i860, 4 but it was 
claimed by the radicals that this could be accounted for by 
the fact that over a hundred thousand negroes had been 
brought into Texas for safety during the war. 5 But even 
so, it is doubtful if the list of registered blacks should have 
been within 6,000 to 8,000 of the total given. 6 

1 Op. cit, 215-218. 

2 Sen. Ex. Docs., 40 C, 2 s., no. 53. The Austin Republican, which 
enjoyed facilities for obtaining official information, gave, on Novem- 
ber 27, 1867, the total registration, except for a few unimportant 
counties, at 104,096; while the total given in the Annual Cyclopedia, 
evidently taken before the January revision, was 104,259, — 56,678 whites 
and 47,581 colored. The final registration showed 59,633 whites and 
49,497 colored. 

3 Austin Republican, -Nov. 27, 1867. 

4 The census of i860 gave the population of Texas as 421,294 whites 
and 182,921 colored; that of 1870 gave 564,700 whites and 253,475 
colored. 

5 Austin Republican, Nov. 27, 1867. 

6 There is no doubt whatever that in many cases the registrars 
knowingly allowed negroes under twenty-one years of age to register; 



197] RADICAL-MILITARY RULE jgy 

Although it had come to be the general understanding 
that the conservatives would refuse to vote at all in the elec- 
tion, some of the leaders, not knowing what the final regis- 
tration returns would show as to their strength, began to 
fear that with this plan they ran too great a risk of putting 
their opponents in control. On January 2d, a call was issued 
from Houston for a general conference of conservatives at 
that place on the 20th, with the view of agreeing upon a 
definite program. Most of the press fell in with the idea, 
though some expressed the fear that a sudden and late 
change of the plans would create uncertainty and division 
when unity was most necessary, and thus play into the 
hands of their enemies. 1 The time was so short that, when 
the convention met on the day appointed, less than twenty 
counties were represented. However, resolutions were 
passed declaring that the one issue before the people of 
the state, rising above all questions of party, was that of 
African equality, and that, since it was the declared inten- 
tion of the radicals in securing a constitutional convention 
to Africanize the state, it was recommended that all per- 
sons entitled to register vote first against a convention and 
then for delegates who would frame a constitution without 
negro suffrage. A state central committee was appointed 
to establish local committees and to push the work in every 
county. A special committee, of which John H. Reagan 
was chairman, issued a public address stating that although 
the people of Texas were anxious to have the state restored 
to the Union, necessity demanded that they prevent the in- 
corporation of negro suffrage into the organic law. Dis- 
claiming any intention of giving offense to Congress, they 

but on the other hand it was often impossible to know the exact age 
of a negro, for he usually did not know it himself. In such cases 
the tendency was to place it sufficiently high. 

1 Houston Telegraph quoted in Texas Republican, Feb. 1, 1868. 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[I 9 8 



rejoiced " that the terms of reconstruction were to be sub- 
mitted to them for their approval without Africanizing the 
state." Their convention, they said, had adopted a course 
which offered to the people three chances to save themselves 
and their children from such a fate: first, by defeating the 
call for a convention ; second, by controlling the convention ; 
third, by rejecting a constitution that embodied negro suf- 
frage. Reconstruction under the acts of Congress would 
be far worse than any military rule. Again the committee 
was careful to state that the action of the conservatives was 
based upon no spirit of factious opposition to Congress or 
of hostility to the negroes. 1 

There was not time enough to canvass the state for the 
new program, and in fact, if the election could have been 
carried through on the line laid down, it would have availed 
little. The Austin Republican derided the hopes of the con- 
servatives and expressed the well-founded opinion that even 
if the voters of the state should refuse the terms of Con- 
gress because the Reconstruction Acts admitted negroes to 
the ballot, Congress would not therefore accept their terms 
and disfranchise men on account of their color; rather, it 
would disfranchise enough " rebels " to make certain the 
result of future elections. " Negro suffrage is here — it is 
no longer a question and the failure of a convention would 
be just as great a victory for the loyal men as its success." 2 

The election passed off more quietly than might have 
been expected. The soldiers had explicit orders from Gen- 
eral Hancock to stay away from the polls unless called upon 
by the civil officers to assist in keeping the peace. The 

1 The minutes of the convention and the resolution are in the 
Texas Republican, Feb. 1, 1868. The address of Reagan's committee 
is in the issue of Feb. 8. A brief account of the convention is in the 
Annual Cyclopcedia, 1868, p. 729. 

2 Feb. S, 1868. 



199] 



RADICAL-MILITARY RULE 



199 



registry boards acted as the officers of election and made 
returns directly to Hancock's headquarters. The returns 
failed utterly to justify whatever hopes the conservative 
leaders may have had. Most of their followers were out 
of reach of their tardy appeal and refused or at any rate 
failed to vote at all. The radicals were overwhelmingly 
victorious ; 44,689 votes were cast for a convention and only 
11,440 against it. 1 The total vote was slightly more than 
half the total registration, and the only effect of the Houston 
convention had been to bring out just enough votes to make 
the constitutional convention a certainty. The ^defeated 
whites relapsed into sullen, despairing inactivit y^ the con - 
servative papers were filled with the gloomiest forebodings 
as to the future of both business and political freedom. 

1 The vote as tabulated by General Buchanan was as follows : 
For a convention — whites, 7,757; blacks, 36,932; total, 44,689. 
Against a convention — whites, 10,622; blacks, 818; total, 11,440. Total 
of vote cast, 56,129. Persons registered who failed to vote, 41,234 
whites; blacks 11,730, total 52,964. Sen. Exec. Docs., 40 C, 2 s., no. 63. 



CHAPTER IX 



The Reconstruction Convention of 1868-1869 

1. First Session 

The constitutional convention elected under the authori- 
zation of Congress — generally known as the " reconstruc- 
tion " convention, but stigmatized by the Conservative press 
as the " mongrel " convention — assembled in Austin on June 
1, 1868. The delegates were ninety in number, the same as 
the lower house of the legislature in i860 and apportioned 
as nearly as possible in the same way. Six had been in the 
convention of 1866. Of the twelve Conservatives only one, 
Lemuel Dale Evans, an exiled Unionist during the war, had 
been of more than ordinary political prominence. All twelve 
were from the eastern and northeastern counties, some 
of which had a heavy negro population. Too weak to carry 
through any of the principles of their party, they were able 
to make themselves felt only by holding, when they could, 
the balance between the two wings of their opponents; 
though they generally allied themselves with the moderates. 
Their leaders were L. D. Evans and James Armstrong, of 
Jasper. On the Radical side the upper councils of the party 
were well represented. Their delegates included three mem- 
bers of the supreme court, namely, A. J. Hamilton, ac- 
knowledged leader of the moderates, and his able supporters, 
Colbert Caldwell and Livingston Lindsay ; also A. J. Evans, 
of Waco, A. P. McCormick, E. J. Davis, who with M. C. 
Hamilton, the comptroller, led the ultra-radicals, Armstrong. 
200 [200 



201] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 2 OI 

of Lamar, E. Degener, leader of the Germans of the south- 
west, G. W. Whitmore, J. W. Flanagan, and F. A. Vaughan. 
At least half a dozen of the Radicals had served in the Con- 
federate army, while some fifteen or twenty had been in the 
Federal service. Most of these latter were bona fide Texans ; 
not more than six or eight were of the true carpet-bag 
variety. The carpet-baggers, none of whom showed con- 
spicuous ability, were led by R. K. Smith, of Galveston, a 
Pennsylvanian ; they supported the faction of Morgan Ham- 
ilton and Davis. There were only nine negro delegates, all 
save one from the black districts bordering the Brazos and 
Trinity rivers. The exception was G. T. Ruby, of Gal- 
veston, a county preponderantly white. Ruby was a mu- 
latto carpet-bagger from New England, a man of some 
ability and fair education, who generally led the negroes 
and threw his influence with the white carpet-baggers for 
the ultra-radical policies. He soon became the head of the 
Loyal Union League in Texas and was destined for fifteen 
years to be the political leader of his race in the state. 

Though the lines were not as yet closely drawn between 
the two radical factions, each began manceuvering for con- 
trol and presented its candidate for the presidency of the 
convention. E. J. Davis, put forward by the Morgan Ham- 
ilton or ab initio party, was elected over Judge C. Caldwell, 
the candidate of A. J. Hamilton and the moderates, by a 
vote of 43 to 33. Davis's career has already been indicated, 
as a Federal judge in the southwest before the war, an op- 
ponent of secession, colonel of the First Texas (Union) Cav- 
alry and brigadier-general, serving both in Louisiana and 
Texas, and delegate to the convention of 1866. He was one 
of the first in Texas to espouse the cause of negro suffrage 
and was always one of the most radical of the Radicals. 
Able, well-known, and popular within his own party, it was 
conceded by the Austin Republican that only one other man 



202 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[202 



in Texas, A. J. Hamilton, could have beaten him for the 
^residency of the convention. 

The first two days were consumed in completing the or- 
ganization of the body. On the third day a message was 
received from Governor Pease. After referring to the con- 
ditions of " extreme difficulty and embarrassment " under 
which the provisional government had been placed, both 
because it was distasteful to " the majority of the people 
who had formerly exercised the political power of the 
state," and because the commander of the Fifth Military 
District (Hancock) to whom its powers were subordinate, 
had sometimes withheld his co-operation and assistance, the 
governor went on — by inference connecting the two facts — 
to declare that crime had never been so prevalent as at that 
time. Since the first of December there had been reported 
to him, from sixty-seven out of the one hundred and twenty- 
seven organized counties of the state, two hundred and six 
homicides. Few of the guilty parties had been punished by 
the law, and the dereliction of the courts had given rise to 
mobs and lynching. The first step toward remedying this 
condition of affairs would be the re-establishment of civil 
government by renewing the proper relations of Texas with 
the Union. That was now the work before the convention ; 
but from the temper manifested by the public press, the 
majority of the white people had not yet profited by their 
experience, were still scornful of the mild terms offered by 
the United States, and seemed determined to risk bringing 
upon themselves harder terms. While not empowered to 
make recommendations to the convention, the governor ven- 
tured to suggest certain lines of action which it was ex- 
pected would be followed in forming the new constitution. 
The pretended act of secession and all laws in aid of re- 
bellion or repugnant to the Constitution of the United States 
should be declared null and void from their inception, and 



203] THE CONVENTION OF 1868- 1869 203 

all laws making any discrimination against persons on ac- 
count of their race, color, or previous condition, should be 
repealed; payment should be provided for the state debt 
owing at the beginning of the war, but the payment of all 
debts incurred in aid of the rebellion or for the support of 
the rebel government should be prohibited; equal civil and 
political rights should be secured to every inhabitant of the 
state who had not forfeited them by participation in re- 
bellion or by conviction for crime; but a sufficient number 
of those who had participated in rebellion should be tem- 
porarily disfranchised, in order to place the political power 
of the state in the hands of those loyal to the United States 
government. Other measures were recommended, as lib- 
eral provisions for public free schools for every child in the 
state, granting of a homestead out of the public domain to 
every citizen without one, and encouragement of immigra- 
tion. With regard to the proposition for a division of the 
state, so much discussed of late, the governor expressed the 
opinion that the population of the state, only about 800,000, 
was not sufficient to bear the expense of two or three gov- 
ernments, and that such a division would not only weaken 
the efforts of the government to carry out a system of public 
education and other needed measures, but would retard the 
re-admission of Texas into the Union, since the Reconstruc- 
tion Acts provided for only one state in this territory. A 
sort of counter proposition was offered, namely, that the 
state government be authorized to sell to the United States 
government that portion of Texas lying west of a line 
drawn from the mouth of the Pecos river to the northwest 
corner of Hardeman County, that is, the southeast corner of 
the Panhandle. The governor thought this region would 
never be of great value to the state and that the money de- 
rived from its sale could be used very profitably in support- 
ing public education and internal improvements. The total 



204 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[204 



amount of money in the treasury at this time and applicable 
to ordinary expenses of the state government was some 
$203,000, practically all of which was United States cur- 
rency. It was believed that $90,000 would cover all the 
expenses of this convention, since the convention of 1866 
had sat fifty-five days and used only about $70,000. In 
such case it would not be necessary to levy the additional 
tax contemplated by the Reconstruction Acts. 1 It will be 
noticed that the governor showed no disposition to recede 
from the position which he had earlier taken in refusing to 
consider all acts of the de facto governments from 186 1 to 
1867 and all acts done under their authority as null and void 
ab initio; but that he did put himself on record as favoring 
the political proscription of enough of the Conservative 
whites to enable the Radicals to control the government. 

A resolution was carried to require all members to take 
the test oath, but when it was found this would exclude a 
number of good Radicals, it was hastily reconsidered, and 
then the whole subject was postponed indefinitely. _The 
per diem of members furnished matter for a long wrangle. 
A resolution, introduced by Webster Flanagan, to fix the 
pay at $15 per day, with mileage to and from the conven- 
tion at 25 cents per mile, was rejected in committee, and a 
recommendation of $8 per day and $8 for every 25 miles 
of travel was substituted. 2 Several efforts to raise the pay 
above this amount were defeated, notwithstanding the plea 
of one prominent Radical that " the bill would be paid by 
the rebels " and that he " would like to handle their money." 
The recommendation of the committee was carried. 3 In 

1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 12-17. 

2 This was the pay received by the members of the convention of 
1866. They had raised it from $5 because of the depreciated condition 
of the currency. 

3 $4 per day was allowed for each clerk, but the official reporter 
received $15 per day. 



205] THE CONVENTION OF 1868- 1869 205 

the same resolution the commanding general was requested 
to authorize an appropriation of $125,000 for the expenses 
of the convention. This appropriation was approved on 
July 2d, by General Buchanan, to the extent of only 
$100,000 — ten thousand more than Governor Pease deemed 
necessary. 1 

But if careful not to be too generous with themselves the 
members did not forget to be indulgent toward some of 
their friends. The Radical papers were clamoring for pat- 
ronage, and when a proposition was brought forward to 
furnish newspapers to the delegates, a most unseemly quar- 
rel arose between the Austin Republican and the San An- 
tonio Express. The former had the advantage of location, 
but the latter had one of its proprietors, Jas. P. Newcomb, 
in the convention ; and when it was proposed to subscribe 
for 1,800 copies of the Republican only, on condition that it 
print the journal, so bitter a squabble began, so full of 
personalities, that the president, E. J. Davis, induced the 
convention to extend the subscription to the papers of New- 
comb, who, it chanced, was one of his staunch supporters. 
As it turned out neither had much cause for complaint ; for 
the Republican was allowed $160 per day for 2,000 copies, 
and its competitor $72 per day for 400 copies of the Ex- 
press and 500 copies of the Fret Presse. 2 Flake's Bulletin, 
left out of the patronage, expressed the greatest disgust at 
this " plundering of the public treasury for the benefit of 
party newspapers — for which the authors ought to blush 
and furnished its own paper to the members gratis. 

The convention was a long time in getting down to the 
task of making a constitution. There was much preliminary 
work to be done by the committees, and there was the 
temptation constantly at hand to bring up matters in no way 

1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 33, 35-38, 46-48, no, 129, 232. 

2 Ibid., 1st sess., 28, 29, 39, 49-51, 59, 61-63, 75-76, 78. 



206 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[206 



related to constitution-making. It was generally under- 
stood that the constitution of 1845 should be the basis of 
the new one, and it was the desire of many members to sim- 
plify the task before them by modifying the older constitu- 
tion only in so far as changes incident to the war had ren- 
dered it necessary; 1 but as time went on political exigencies 
forced this idea aside. 

The question as to the powers possessed by the conven- 
tion was prolific of debate in the early days of the session. 
A strong minority endeavored without success to hold the 
body to the doctrine that, since its powers were derived 
solely from the Reconstruction Acts and not from the people, 
it should restrict itself to the framing of the new constitu- 
tion. The majority determined that it was a question for 
the convention alone to determine what ordinances, declara- 
tions, and resolutions were " necessary and proper to carry 
out the expressed will of Congress," and thus, though there 
seemed to be a general desire to stick to the chief work 
before them, the way was opened for the consideration of a 
number of extraneous and time-consuming subjects. 2 

The real contest was waged about the ab initio question. 
Since the controversy aroused by the stand taken by Gov- 
ernor Pease in the previous October, the extremists had been 
vigorously at work making converts, and they were now 
able to muster a considerable number of the ablest delegates. 
These included the president, E. J. Davis, Morgan C. Ham- 
ilton, the acknowledged leader of the faction on the floor, 
E. Degener, A. J. Evans, an able lawyer and debater, and 
G. W. Whitmore, a lawyer and judge who had been long in 
politics. Most of the " carpet-baggers " also were ab initio 
men, such as R. K. Smith and the negro Ruby. Opposed 
to them were A. J. Hamilton, Colbert Caldwell, Livingston 

1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 75, 185, 217, 735. 

2 Ibid., 32, 54, 55, 56, 75, 77, 137. 



207] 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 



207 



Lindsay, the two Flanagans, Vaughan, H. C. Pedigo, and 
the able young lawyer, McCormick. 

The conflict between the two factions was not to be long 
delayed. A preliminary trial of strength had given the ex- 
tremists control of the chair. On June 5th, A. J. Evans 
precipitated the issue by proposing a resolution asserting 
the theory that the people of the United States and not the 
states established the government of the United States ; that 
no local, territorial, or state government could exist in the 
United States without the express sanction of Congress; 
and that the convention would not recognize or sanction 
the ordinance of secession " or any bill, law, ordinance, act, 
resolution, rule, or provision, made or enacted since March, 
1 86 1, as having now or ever having had validity in the 
State of Texas." The committee on federal relations, to 
which it was referred, divided, the majority reporting 
favorably on the whole resolution, the minority dissenting 
from the last clause and desiring so to amend it as to con- 
fine its application to those laws and acts passed in aid of 
the rebellion and conflicting with the Constitution of the 
United States. The majority report 1 aroused a long and 
bitter debate, and led to a renewal of the quarrel between 
the Austin Republican and the San Antonio Express, the 
latter of which had become the organ of the ab initio faction. 
A vote was not reached until June 29th, when a substitute 
offered by A. J. Hamilton was adopted in committee of the 
whole, declaring, in essence, that only the secession ordi- 
nance, laws in contravention of the constitution or laws of 
the United States, or in aid of the rebellion, and laws de- 
signed to benefit disloyal men at the expense of the public 
or of loyal men, were null and void from the beginning; 
and that such laws as only regulated the domestic concerns 

1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 28, 53. 



208 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[208 



of the people and were not in contravention of the laws of 
the United States should be respected by the courts. The 
Conservatives, who had supported the substitute in com- 
mittee of the whole, joined with Morgan Hamilton when it 
came before the convention and succeeded in tabling the 
whole matter by a vote of 46 to 43. 1 

Feeling ran too strong, however, for the subject to be 
more than temporarily disposed of in this way. Two days 
later, E. J. Davis introduced for incorporation into the 
general provisions of the new constitution, a declaration 
embodying the ab initio doctrine, but with provisions ap- 
pended for validating and establishing such laws, parts of 
laws, and acts, passed or performed since secession, as 
should be deemed necessary and worthy to be preserved and 
respected. 2 But Morgan Hamilton, as chairman of the 
committee on general provisions to which the resolution 
was referred, reported the committee unwilling to accept 
as valid or to validate " any pretended law, however inof- 
fensive its character passed by those in rebellion against 
the government. 3 However, in their report the section 
dealing with this subject provided 

that the acts of the so-called officers in solemnizing marriages, 
in taking acknowledgments, and recording deeds and other 
instruments of writing, the decisions of so-called courts, and 
all contracts between private parties subject to the laws of the 
United States since the 28th day of January, 1861, 

should be declared valid and binding. In other words, all 
laws and official acts passed since 1861 had been null and 
void from the first, but certain acts involving only private 

1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 53, 120, 126, 157, 161, 176; Austin 
Daily Republican, June 27, 30, July 6. 

2 Ibid., 188. 3 Ibid., 234. 



2og] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 20 g 

relations should now be validated nonetheless. The acts 
of the convention of 1866 and of the eleventh legislature, 
were without sanction of legal authority and should be re- 
spected only so long as the commanding general should 
enforce them as rules of action under his government. 1 

It was not until August 20th that the convention reached 
this section of the report, and in the interval the subject 
had been fought over elsewhere. The Republican state 
convention met in Austin from August 12th to 14th, with 
most of the members of the constitutional convention as 
delegates or alternates. The anti-ab -initio party had about 
two-thirds of the delegates and therefore secured control 
of the organization. The majority of the platform com- 
mittee reported resolutions pledging adherence to the na- 
tional platform, the reconstruction laws, and the prospective 
state constitution, and made no mention whatever of the 
local controversy. E. J. Davis, in a minority report, offered 
additional resolutions embodying the doctrine of his faction. 
After a vigorous debate the minority report was overwhelm- 
ingly rejected, whereupon Davis and a large number of the 
ab initio delegates withdrew and formed a convention of 
their own with Jas. P. Newcomb as chairman. The regular 
convention endeavored to find some middle ground upon 
which to stand with the bolters, and drew up additional 
resolutions that went so far as to concede that the rebel 
legislatures, which they had always insisted had the force 
of de facto governments for the passage of laws governing 
the private relations of citizens, had " had no legal capacity 
to enact laws binding upon the people of Texas." The 
" Newcomb convention " refused as a body to make the 
compromise, but the fear of the consequences of a permanent 
party split so worked upon certain individuals among them, 
their comparative paucity and hopelessness outside the regu- 

1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 234, 241-242. 



2IO 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[2IO 



lar organization upon others, that many of their members, 
the leaders excepted, found their way back before final ad- 
journment. 1 Thus the anti-ab-initio faction was able to go 
on in the constituent body with the prestige of regular 
party approval ; and they did not fail to claim in addition the 
support of the military commanders, of Grant, now Repub- 
lican nominee for the Presidency, and of the national plat- 
form, since this last did not at any rate raise the issue. 

On August 20th the convention reached the ab initio sec- 
tion in the report of general provisions. Morgan Hamilton 
was now in Washington on mission to Congress, but it is 
doubtful if his presence could have availed his followers 
much. After a stormy wrangle the whole section was tabled 
by a decisive vote, 52 to 27, and a new section offered by 
Caldwell was adopted over a substitute by Davis, 45 to 28. 
The greater part of the Conservatives voted against all the 
propositions. The section now finally adopted simply took 
the familiar ground of the moderates, that secession, the 
whole state debt contracted during the war, and all acts of 
the " rebel " state government in contravention of the con- 
stitution and laws of the United States were null and void 
from the beginning; that the legislatures which sat from 
March 18, 1861, to August 5, 1866, had no constitutional 
authority to make laws binding upon the people of Texas; 
provided that this should not be construed to inhibit the 
authorities of the state from respecting and enforcing such 
" rules and regulations " as had been prescribed by the said 
legislatures, and were not in violation of the constitution 
and laws of the United States, or of Texas, or in aid of the 
rebellion, or prejudicial to loyal citizens — nor to prejudice 
private rights which had grown up under these rules and 
regulations, nor to invalidate official acts not in aid of the 

1 For proceedings of this Republican convention see Austin Daily 
Republican, Aug. 13-15, 1868. 



2Il] 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 



211 



rebellion. The eleventh legislature (1866) was declared 
provisional only, and its acts were to be respected in so far 
as they were not in violation of the constitution and laws 
of the United States, or were not intended to reward par- 
ticipants in the rebellion, or to discriminate between citizens 
on account of race or color, or to operate prejudicially to 
any class of citizens. 1 

There would seem to be but little difference in the prac- 
tical application of the two theories, since the one proposed 
to validate by special acts what the other proposed to regard 
as already valid for reasons of public policy and social sta- 
bility. Only an abstraction now separated the two factions ; 
but neither was willing to go further, and the split con- 
tinued despite efforts at conciliation. The Austin Republi- 
can made an earnest plea for party harmony and urged the 
danger of division in the face of their Conservative enemies, 
who were, in fact, very jubilant over the Radical split. 2 

That the issue was still alive was shown just three days 
before the final adjournment when a negro delegate, Ralph 
Long, of Limestone, offered a resolution annulling certain 
decisions of the provisional state courts, among which were 
those that declared the government of the Confederacy and 
of the rebel states de facto governments, and held that eman- 
cipation did not take universal effect at the time of Lincoln's 
proclamation. The resolution was promptly rejected, 40 
to 22. 3 Davis and his followers gave no sign of surrender- 
ing or even of modifying their views, but on the contrary 
threatened to oppose the adoption, of the new constitution 
and went about building up an organization of their own 
in opposition to the " regulars ". 

1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 793-798. 

2 Austin Daily Republican, July 16, 18, Aug. 19, 21 ; San Antonio 
Daily Herald, June 22; State Gazette, Aug. 17, 1868. 

3 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 920. 



212 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ 2I2 

The proposition to divide Texas into two or three states 
brought about another sharp fight that helped to widen the 
breach and intensify the bitterness between the two factions ; 
for the alignment here was nearly the same as in the ab 
initio controversy. The Davis faction favored division 
almost to a man and on this issue gained over a sufficient 
number of A. J. Hamilton's followers to secure a slight 
ma j ority. Th& diyjsjpjLiHiesiion, -however^ waa jiot strictly 
a party issue, for both Conservatives and Radicals were to 
be found on each side. It was rather sectional than political. 
Nor was it a new thing; for the idea had been entertained 
and occasionally brought forward from the time Texas had 
first become a member of the Federal Union. The terms of 
her admission in 1845 had provided for a future division 
into five states ; and the problems at that time incident to her 
vast territorial extent had kept the question alive. The lack 
of railroads, except for a few short lines, inadequate means 
of travel and communication, the long, harassed frontier 
line, the peculiar grouping of the population, had made the 
problem of administration a difficult one for the state gov- 
ernment even before the war. Now there were additional 
incentives. It was urged by many of the Radicals that the 
arm of the state government was too weak to reach into 
the far-out districts and preserve order, that only by a divi- 
sion into separate states could the people be assured of se- 
curity and peace. East Texas was then the wealthiest part 
of the state and complained of bearing more than its share 
of the public burdens; it was also the stronghold of the 
Conservatives, many of whom were doubtful of their ability 
to control the whole state with the foreign and the negro 
vote against them. The south and the southwest were peo- 
pled largely by Germans and were predominantly Radical 
or Republican; hence political interests also seemed to call 
for separation. But more potent reasons, perhaps, in the 



213] THE CONVENTION OF 1868- 1869 213 

convention of 1868, were the ambitions of political leaders. 
Three states would offer more opportunities for political 
advancement than one; and moreover the faction opposed 
to A. J. Hamilton feared that he could not be eliminated 
from the control of the Republican party in the state, which 
would surely mean political subordination for themselves. 
If Hamilton could not be thrust out of the leadership of the 
party, he might be eliminated, so far as the most of them 
were concerned, by so slicing up the state as to leave him the 
central region only. It was perhaps this fear of Hamilton's 
dominance that led E. J. Davis, of Nueces, to come to terms 
with Lemuel Dale Evans, the able Conservative from East 
Texas, on the matter of division. Both were ambitious, 
each represented a section upon which he might confidently 
reckon for support, but neither enjoyed much of a prospect 
for support in sections other than his own. The southwest 
delegation was solid for division and a large number of 
Republicans from the eastern districts supported it also. 
What sort of understanding there was between them and 
L. D. Evans in the event of the success of the measure is 
not clear, but it is almost certain that some agreement ex- 
isted. 

In addition to the certain and powerful opposition of 
A. J. Hamilton, the plans of the divisionists were em- 
barrassed by two other propositions. One of these was the 
proposal submitted by Governor Pease to sell the northwest 
territory to the United States; the other was the petition 
brought by W. W. Mills, a young delegate from El Paso, 
for Texas to cede that remote corner of her territory to the 
United States, provided it should be joined with the county 
of Dona Anna, New Mexico, in a territorial government. 1 
Neither of these propositions suited the divisionists of the 



1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 135, 758-761. 



214 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[214 



southwest, for either would subtract a substantial portion 
from the state of which they dreamed. In the meantime, 
however, the divisionists had secured help in another quar- 
ter. As early as December 3, 1867, Thaddeus Stevens had 
introduced a resolution into the national House of Represen- 
tatives directing the reconstruction committee to enquire 
into the expediency of dividing Texas into two or more 
states. Considerable pressure seems to have been brought to 
bear at Washington — by whom, it is difficult to say though 
it is easy to conjecture; for the idea cropped up now and 
then during the spring. 1 Just before the convention as- 
sembled, Beaman, from the reconstruction committee of 
Congress, reported a bill to divide Texas into three states. 
One line was to cut the state along the San Jacinto and 
Trinity rivers, up to the East Fork of the Trinity and thence 
to the Red river along the western boundary of Fannin 
County. The other was to follow the Colorado river to the 
thirty-second parallel of latitude, thence west to the Rio 
Grande along the northern edge of El Paso County. The 
bill further provided that the Texas convention should 
divide itself into three conventions representing respectively 
three new states, East Texas, Texas, and South Texas. 

On June 9th, a special committee of fifteen was appointed 
to consider the subject of division. The Beaman bill, still 
before Congress, was telegraphed for, referred, and on June 
24th, favorably reported, with a few trifling amendments, 
and the request that it be recommended to Congress for 
speedy action. 2 An effort to get rid of the whole matter by 
referring the subject of division to the legislature was un- 
successful. Since the divisionists had a slight majority, 

1 L. D. Evans had been in Washington until the spring of 1868, and 
was accused by the Austin Republican of having intrigued in the 
matter. 

2 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 51, 106, 144-148. 



215] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 2l $ 

their opponents determined either to prevent a decisive vote 
by filibustering, or to divide the forces of the three-state 
party. The latter manceuver was tried first. A. J. Ham- 
ilton introduced a substitute proposing other lines of divi- 
sion, namely, to make the Brazos the boundary between East 
and West Texas and to create a third state north of the 
thirty-second parallel of latitude. It was hoped, not that 
this substitute 1 would really be adopted, but that it would 
divide and confuse the advocates of division. It was finally 
voted down. 2 But Congress had not yet acted upon the 
Beaman bill, and until that should be passed it was urged 
that the convention had no authority to pass finally upon a 
subject of such paramount importance, one that had not 
been contemplated by the Reconstruction Acts nor by the 
people of the state in the election of the delegates. Some of 
the lukewarm divisionists, too, were beginning to fear that 
the subject was being made paramount to the proper work 
of their body, and that it was only driving further asunder 
the two wings of the Republican party in Texas; and on 
July 1 6th, several of them voted for a resolution by Thomas 
that no question relating to a division of the state would 
thereafter be entertained unless by the authority of Con- 
gress. It was carried, 47 to 37; the Republican vote stand- 
ing 39 t0 35. 3 Two days before adjournment an attempt 
was made to bring the matter up again, but it failed. The 
subject was revived, however, in the next session and pre- 
cipitated a most violent conflict. Governor Pease's propo- 
sition to sell the northwest had, in the meantime, been quietly 
shelved. The El Paso cession, championed by .the energetic 
Mills, seemed on the point of going through, but it suc- 

1 Austin Daily Republican, July 6, 1868. 

2 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 309. 

3 Ibid., 391, 409-11. Austin Daily Republican, July 18, 1868. 



2l6 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ 2 i6 

cumbed finally to a combination of divisionists, chiefly from 
the southwest, and a few anti-divisionists, by a vote of 38 
to 32. 1 

A subject that claimed a great deal of the time and atten- 
tion of both sessions of the convention was that of railroads ; 
but, although it was one of great importance to the state, 
it does not come sufficiently within the province of this essay 
to warrant more than the briefest discussion here. Some 
half dozen railroads, by an act of 1856, had borrowed large 
sums from the state school fund, and the total of principal 
and accumulated interest now amounted to a little more 
than two and a half millions of dollars. 2 During the war 
all of the roads had suffered great deterioration, from which 
they had hardly begun to recover, and in order to secure 
their debts to the school fund, those that seemed hopelessly 
insolvent were ordered to be foreclosed upon and sold by 
the governor, while those that showed signs of reviving 
were given more time. 3 As it turned out, none were actually 
sold by the state, for the convention failed to appropriate 
any money for the expenses of the sale. All the existing 
roads were short lines that reached but a little way into the 
state and were wholly inadequate to the needs of the interior 
population. It was generally felt that not only more roads, 
but especially a number of trunk lines were needed; and in 
addition to granting extensions to existing lines, several 
new roads were chartered. Some suspicion hovered over 
certain of these grants; for in several of them prominent 
members of the convention figured as directors of the com- 
panies, eliciting in one case an ironical proposal " to amend 
by adding the remaining members of the convention as in- 

1 Convention lournal, 1st sess., 758-761. 

2 Ibid., 270-275, 482-485. 

3 Ibid., 848-850; Gammel, VI, 47, 48. 



217] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 2 IJ 

corporators." 1 One of the new roads that excited particu- 
lar controversy was the International Pacific, later known 
as the International and Great Northern, about which cen- 
tered one of the scandals of the twelfth legislature. 2 

If the ab initio question and the proposed division of the 
state had created dissensions and bitterness within the Re- 
publican ranks, there was still one matter upon which they 
stood as a unit. Ever since the close of the war they had 
complained of lawless violence and of persecution — that their 
condition everywhere was precarious and sometimes un- 
bearable; and never had their complaints been louder or 
more persistent than since the machinery of the state govern- 
ment had passed into the hands of " loyal " men. It had 
been confidently asserted before the assembling of the con- 
vention that one of its duties would be to take measures for 
the suppression of lawlessness and for insuring protection 
to the members of the Republican party. 

Hardly had the convention completed its organization 
when Judge Colbert Caldwell, whose experiences at Mar- 
shall have been mentioned, offered a resolution for the ap- 
pointment of a select committee to investigate and report 
upon the conditions of lawlessness and violence in the state. 3 
The committee did not make its formal report for nearly a 
month, but the convention did not wait for that. On June 
13th, a resolution was introduced by Lippard tendering to 
the state commander, General Reynolds, " a sufficient num- 
ber of loyal men in each county, as in his opinion may be 
necessary, to aid and assist in the suppression of crime and 
the protection of life and property and the enforcement of 
the laws ". The resolution was reported favorably, but a 
substitute offered by A. J. Hamilton was accepted and 

1 Convention Journal, 2nd sess., 163. 

2 See speech of E. Degener, in Austin Daily Republican, July 22, 1868. 
9 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 30, 34. 



2l8 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[218 



passed, requesting Congress to allow the convention to 
organize a militia force in each county to act in conjunction 
with and under the direction of the military commander 
(Reynolds). 1 A number of the Conservatives protested 
against the resolution on the grounds that the rumors of 
lawlessness were greatly exaggerated, " that the organiza- 
tion of such a force by a political party would only tend to 
exasperate the public mind and in all probability have the 
effect to produce conflicts of races," 2 that the officers of the 
provisional government, if they would do their duty, would 
be able with the help of the military to bring all trans- 
gressors to punishment, and that the resolution was an im- 
plied censure of and an affront to the commander of the 
Fifth Military District, in that the granting of such a power 
would invest the state commander, through the convention, 
with power over the district commander within the limits 
of the state. 3 This was followed up by another resolution 
appropriating $25,000 to enable the governor to offer suit- 
able rewards for the arrest of desperadoes and to employ 
detectives to ferret out their hiding places. Before the reso- 
lution was passed an amendment was tacked on, providing 
that none of the money so appropriated should be used 
unless the state commander should first be authorized to 
organize military commissions for the trial of offenders — 
an undisguised attack upon General Buchanan, who held 
to Hancock's opinion of military commissions, and all the 
more strangely out of place, since any resolution appro- 
priating money had to be sent to that officer for approval. 4 

1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 108, ill. 

2 A sensible conclusion, for most of the " loyalist " militiamen would 
of necessity have been negroes. 

3 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 131. The district commander had 
in general followed the policy of Hancock and was disliked almost as 
much by the Radicals. 

* Ibid., 124, 132, 134, 136. 



219] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 2 ig 

As should have been expected, Buchanan refused to approve 
the measure, on the ground that it was unauthorized by the 
Reconstruction Acts under which the convention was assem- 
bled, that it was properly a subject for the consideration of 
the state legislature, and that the proviso with reference to 
military commissions, " intended as a gratuitous indignity 
to the Commanding General," displayed a spirit of which he 
could hardly be expected to approve. 1 Shortly afterwards, 
however, when General Reynolds became commander of the 
Fifth Military District, confined now to Texas, the resolu- 
tion was again passed and submitted to him for approval, 
as one in whose " loyalty, ability, and patriotism the people 
of Texas repose full confidence." 2 

On July 2d, the committee on lawlessness and violence 
made its report, which it supplemented three weeks later 
with more complete statistics. 3 The committee had had 
access to three sources of information: the records of the 
state departments, particularly the official reports of the 
clerks of the district courts; the records of the Freedmen's 
Bureau ; and the sworn statements of witnesses from various 
parts of the state. It was claimed that none of these fur- 
nished complete information; the first, because only about 
forty counties were represented and only those offenses were 
taken notice of for which indictments had been found; the 
second, because the records of the Bureau covered only 
about sixty counties and dealt only with the outrages upon 
freedmen; and the last, because it was difficult to get wit- 
nesses to testify, through fear of assassination, while those 
who did testify had to rely wholly upon memory. It was 
also claimed that no report had been accepted that did not 
bear the marks of veracity and that every statement made 



1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 510. 

2 Ibid., 616, 619-21. 3 Ibid., 193-203, 500-505. 



220 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[220 



' " 1866 


75 


' " 1867 


173 


4 " 1868 


182 


' Year unknown " 




' Race unknown 





was warranted by the facts. The committee had been com- 
pelled to restrict its investigations to the homicides com- 
mitted since the rebellion, and to take no note of the numer- 
ous assaults, robberies, and other outrages, which would 
have imposed " an endless task ". The homicides from the 
close of the war to June, 1868, were tabulated as follows: 1 

Killed in 1865, whites, 47; freedmen, 51; total 98. 

95 " 170 

174 " 347 

137 " 3i9 

29 " 61 
40. 

509 486 1035. 

More than ninety per cent of the total were asserted to have 
been committed by white men, while little more than one 
per cent were by negroes upon whites. 2 

Though admitting at the outset that many of these homi- 
cides were committed for the purposes of plunder and rob- 
bery, the principal conclusion that the committee endeavored 
to deduce was that the chief cause of these crimes was " the 
hostility entertained by ex-rebels toward loyal men of both 
races." In support of this was cited the large number of 
negroes killed by whites as against the small number of 
whites killed by negroes, so that " the war of races " was 
all against the blacks; and also, that a large proportion of 
the whites slain were unionists, and that they had been 
killed for their unionism by men who " with remarkably 

1 This table is taken from the supplementary report of July 25, which 
was claimed to be more accurate than the first. See Convention 
Journal, 1st sess., 194, 501. 

2 The statement in the report of July 2 that only 48 freedmen had 
been killed by freedmen during the three years is incredible; but 
whether a correction on this point would reduce the number attri- 
buted to whites or simply swell the total, cannot be said. 



22l] 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 



221 



few exceptions were and are disloyal to the government." 
It is impossible to accept in full the conclusion of the com- 
mittee on this point. In the first place, few or none of the 
negroes killed during 1865 and 1866 were killed for their 
unionism — the negro was not then a political factor — but 
chiefly on account of labor disputes and other private quar- 
rels. Since the formation of the Union Leagues in the 
spring and summer of 1867, irritation against the blacks 
had developed rapidly, but even during this time the political 
question was more often the remote than the immediate 
cause of trouble. At the same time there is no doubt what- 
ever that negroes were sometimes killed because of their 
connection with the League, and in many cases murdered 
most brutally and wantonly for no real cause whatever. As 
to the large proportion of unionists among the whites killed, 
the evidence is in no way conclusive; for other evidence 
shows that many of the " union men " were not unionists 
at all, and that in a number of cases where they were, pri- 
vate quarrels lay at the root of the trouble. 1 On the other 
hand, nothing is more certain than that Radicals were not 
popular in many sections of Texas, and that an aggressive 
activity in the Union League was the occasion, direct or in- 
direct, of much retaliatory violence and a number of homi- 
cides. The committee's report, however, made conditions 
appear worse than they seem to have been in reality. The 
constant challenge of the Conservatives that the individual 
cases of murdered loyalists be specified was answered with 
a list of twenty-three whites and fourteen blacks ; but of the 
total only eight victims were named or otherwise identified 
— though it should have been easy to give the names of all 
or nearly all — and of the eight, four proved to be incorrectly 



1 See minority report of Mullins, Convention Journal, 672-79. 



222 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[222 



given, a fact which cast suspicion upon the accuracy of the 
remainder of the list. 1 

That there were organizations of " disloyal, desperate 
men " in several sections of the state, was another conclu- 
sion reached by the committee. These organizations were 
believed to be widespread and to exist for the purpose of 
driving out or murdering Union men, of intimidating the 
freedmen, and of protecting their own members from the 
military and the courts. In some districts these combina- 
tions were too strong for the civil authorities and openly 
defied them. In others the county officers were themselves 
involved in their acts of violence, or connived at them, and 
wilfully neglected to make arrests. In several cases the 
sheriffs were leaders of the gangs which infested their dis- 
tricts. However, even if arrested, bad men had little to fear 
from the civil courts ; for it was notoriously difficult to secure 
a conviction for murder upon any evidence, sometimes be- 
cause of the sympathy of the jury with the criminal, some- 
times through their fear of his confederates. This laxity 
in the civil courts was ascribed chiefly to " that animosity 
toward the government and its friends so prevalent every- 
where. ... It is our solemn conviction that the courts, 
especially juries, as a rule will not convict ex-rebels for 
offenses committed against Union men and freedmen." 

Special stress was laid upon " the increase of crime within 
the last seven months ", and the responsibility for this con- 
dition was ascribed to Generals Hancock and Buchanan. 
It was claimed that since the publication of Hancock's 
" General Orders No. 40," November 29, 1867, which had 
relieved criminals of the fear of military commissions, 
crime had fearfully increased. Figures were adduced to 

1 Supplementary report, Convention Journal, 500; Austin Daily Re- 
publican, Aug. 24, 1868. 



223] 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 



223 



show that to the date of Throckmorton's removal mur- 
ders had averaged eighteen per month; falling off to only 
nine per month during the first three months of Pease's ad- 
ministration ; and rising to thirty in the first month of Han- 
cock's command, December. 

In other words, according to the lowest calculation, the peace 
administration of Generals Hancock and Buchanan has to ac- 
count for twice the number of murders committed under the 
Sheridan-Throckmorton administration, and three times the 
number committed under the Sheridan-Pease administration. 
Moreover, fuller reports show that since the policy of General 
Hancock was inaugurated, sustained as it is by President 
Johnson, the homicides in Texas have averaged fifty-five per 
month; and for the last five months they have averaged sixty 
per month. It is for the Commander of the Fifth Military 
District to answer to the public for at least two-thirds of the 
330, or more, homicides committed in Texas since the first 
of December, 1867. Charged by law to keep the peace and 
afford protection to life and property, and having the army of 
the United States to assist him in so doing, he has failed. He 
has persistently refused to try criminals, rejected the prayers 
of the Executive of the State and of the Commanding General 
of the District of Texas for adequate tribunals, and turned a 
deaf ear to the cry of tried and persecuted loyalists. And 
knowing whereof we affirm, and in the face of the civilized 
world, we do solemnly lay to his charge the death of hundreds 
of the loyal citizens of Texas — a responsibility that should load 
his name with infamy, and hand his very memory to coming 
years as a curse and an execration. 

The report closed with an appeal to the United States 
government for protection, and a resolution that copies 
of the report be sent to Congress to that end. 

It was a skilfully drawn and an impressive document, 
though most obviously partisan both in the arrangement of 



224 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[224 



its matter and in its conclusions. The committee bent every 
effort to place all the blame for the lawlessness in Texas, 
which was certainly bad enough, at the door of their politi- 
cal opponents. To this end they appear to have exaggerated 
the popular hostility, which naturally existed, toward their 
party, while they wholly ignored the fact that the radical 
program of reconstruction was itself responsible for the 
political excitement, the administrative confusion, and the 
general unrest which had so encouraged lawlessness. It 
was true that convictions for homicide were difficult to ob- 
tain ; but that had been true before the war, as it continued 
to be true in Texas long after the period of reconstruction 
had closed, and was due more to the old code and influences 
of the frontier than to any other cause. As for the bitter 
charge against General Hancock, his refusal to organize 
military commissions had been coupled with a promise to 
furnish military assistance for the arrest of criminals and 
to strengthen the hands of the civil authorities whenever 
called upon to do so ; and it does not appear that, after their 
disagreement relative to the military tribunals for Uvalde 
County, Governor Pease ever made any request for help of 
Hancock himself. The increase of crime in 1868 — and that 
it had greatly increased is not to be disputed — can not be 
justly laid wholly to the charge of the military commanders; 
the Radical leaders themselves must bear a part of the re- 
sponsibility. 

On the day after the report was received, E. J. Davis in- 
troduced a resolution providing that Morgan Hamilton and 
Judge Caldwell, chairman of the above committee, should 
go to Washington without delay to 

lay before Congress the conditions of lawlessness and violence 
prevalent in this state arid urge the immediate necessity for 
action on the following matters: first, the adoption of some 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 



225 



law or regulation that will secure the filling of all state provi- 
sional offices with competent and loyal incumbents ; second, the 
organization of a loyal militia, to be placed under the direction 
and control of the loyal provisional authorities of Texas ; third, 
the appointment by this convention of registrars of voters 
previous to the coming election. 1 

On July 6th, the resolution was passed and the delegates 
named proceeded immediately to the national capital. 2 

Before passing to the general provisions of the constitu- 
tion upon which the convention finally got to work during 
the last days of the session, some mention should be made 
of certain miscellaneous measures which occupied much 
time and attention. Some were of importance, while others 
merely illustrated the prevailing temper of the delegates. 
Such was the effort made to induce Congress to transfer 
from the commander of the Fifth Military District to the 
convention the control over the appointment and removal 
of registrars for ascertaining and recording the qualified 
voters. 3 Another was a provision granting lands out of the 

1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 212-213. The third clause was added 
later. See the Journal, 221. 

2 The publication of the report on lawlessness, followed by the 
sending of a committee to Washington for the purposes avowed in 
the above resolutions, aroused the ire of the Conservatives. The 
Houston Telegraph, July 14, closed a wrathful editorial on the pros- 
pect of a negro militia with the words : " No man ever hung in Texas 
by lynch law was ever half such a criminal in the sight of God or 
man as the man who seeks to plunge his country into a war of races, 
the most savage of all wars, which would result in the extermination 
of the blacks and in the ruin of the state. We say it solemnly, such 
men [Hamilton and Caldwell] ought to die." For this the conven- 
tion requested General Reynolds to arrest the editor, Gillespie, try him 
before a military commission for counselling and advising assassina- 
tion, and suppress his paper. Convention Journal, 435; Austin Daily 
Republican, July 21, 22, 23, 1868. 

3 Convention Journal, 40-42. 



226 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[226 



public domain and a bounty in money to Texans who had 
served in the Federal army. 1 A list of Republicans, " loyal 
citizens," disfranchised by the reconstruction acts, was very 
carefully prepared and Congress was petitioned to have their 
disabilities removed. 2 Several of these were members of 
the convention. The condition of the state penitentiary was 
examined into, its financial management under the Throck- 
morton administration condemned, and a large number of 
convicts, mostly negroes, alleged to have been convicted un- 
justly or for trivial offenses, were recommended for executive 
clemency. 3 Finally, an effort was made to have Congress 
indemnify the settlers on the frontier for their losses at the 
hands of Indians since the war, and to appropriate money 
for the ransom of captives held by the savages. 4 

Progress upon the constitution itself was very slow, 
chiefly because so much time was taken up with contro- 
versies over the ab initio doctrine, the division of the state, 
railroads, and a score of minor matters, some of them purely 
legislative in character and therefore not proper to a consti- 
tutional convention. Reports were made by all the im- 
portant committees having parts of the constitution under 
consideration, but the convention did not succeed in passing 
upon them all. The introduction and first section of the 
"bill of rights" clearly illustrate the new Radical view of the 
condition of the state government : 

1 Convention Journal, 173, 186, 294-296, 845-847. Gammel, VI, 45. 

2 Ibid., 141, 143, 226-227, 232, 512-526, 925-939. 

3 The recommendations seem generally to have been based upon the 
statements of the convicts themselves. Convention Journal, 534 _ 554> 
627-628, 771-775, 803-809, 864-869. 

4 Ibid., 76, 395, 593. The language of these resolutions shows that 
the Unionists of Texas did not share Sheridan's skepticism as to the 
danger from Indian attacks. 



22j] 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 



227 



That the heresies of nullification and secession which brought 
the country to grief may be eliminated from future political 
discussions ; that public order may be restored, private property 
and human life protected, and the great principles of liberty 
and equality secured to us and our posterity, we declare that : 

Section 1. The Constitution of the United States, and the 
laws, treaties made and to be made, in pursuance thereof, are 
acknowledged to be the supreme law ; that this Constitution is 
framed in harmony with and in subordination thereto; and 
that the fundamental principles embodied herein can only be 
changed, subject to the national authority. 1 

A marked tendency toward centralization of authority was 
manifested by extending the governor's appointive power 
and lengthening the terms of nearly all state officials. 
It was provided that the governor should hold office for 
four years, and that he should appoint the secretary of 
state and the attorney-general; and an attempt was made, 
though it ultimately failed, to give him general control over 
and power to remove not only those officials, but likewise the 
comptroller, treasurer, and land commissioner, who were 
elective. It was agreed that he should appoint the justices 
of the supreme court for terms of nine years each, and dis- 
trict judges for terms of eight years. A strong effort was 
made to have district attorneys, clerks and sheriffs made 
appointive also, the first by the governor, the others by the 
district judges, but these were finally all made elective. 2 
The county courts were abolished. These changes were 
probably for the purpose of injecting more vigor into the 
courts and the peace officers with a view to checking law- 
lessness. It is a curious fact that this centralizing policy 
was championed by the moderate Republicans and opposed 

1 Convention Journal, 1st sess., 235; Gammel, VII, 395. 

2 Ibid., 1st sess., 477-482, 465-470- Gammel, VII, 410-415. 



228 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[228 



by the faction of E. J. Davis, in whose hands it later became 
so odious. 

Action on the report from the committee on education 
was postponed until the next session. The most noteworthy- 
features of that report were the provisions for increasing 
the existing permanent school fund by adding to it all 
money to be received from the sale of the public domain, 
and for applying all the available fund to the education of 
all children within the scholastic age — from six to eighteen 
years — without distinction of race or color. 1 The con- 
vention was careful to wipe out all such distinctions wher- 
ever they had previously existed. 

The very important question as to suffrage qualifications 
was reached only on August 26th. Since the great differ- 
ences of opinion on this subject precluded the possibility of 
settling it in the few remaining days of the session, its con- 
sideration was postponed until after the recess. 

It had been evident for some time that an adjournment 
would be inevitable before the work was finished. The ex- 
treme Radicals became more and more dissatisfied as they 
saw the opportunities steadily diminishing for carrying 
through their measures, and from the middle of July they 
began to demand a recess until the next session of Congress ; 
but on August 10th their opponents succeeded in crowding 
through a resolution shutting off consideration of the sub- 
ject for the next two weeks. In the meantime, however, the 
appropriation for the pay and expenses of the convention, 
approved by General Buchanan to the extent of $100,000, 
had been exhausted; and a resolution was passed, August 
20th, requesting the new district commander, Reynolds, to 
approve the balance ($25,000) of that appropriation. Rey- 
nolds refused, pointing out that the convention had already 



1 Convention Journal, 609-614; Gammel, VII, 417-418. 



22 Q ] 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 



229 



been in session eighty-five days and had expended $100,000, 
while the low state of the treasury, the rate at which money 
was coming in, and the prospective wants of the state gov- 
ernment forbade further outlay. 1 It was absolutely nec- 
essary, however, to find means of paying for another session 
unless the constitution was to be left hanging in the air, 
unfinished. The Radical extremists were so dissatisfied with 
it that they expressed a cheerful willingness to see it hang 
there, and the Conservatives manifested a similar feeling. 
These factions were not strong enough, however, to have 
their way. As soon as it was known that the additional 
appropriation would not be granted, the moderates agreed 
to an adjournment from August 31st to the first Monday 
in December. 2 The day after the receipt of Reynolds's 
reply, an ordinance was passed levying the tax provided for 
in the Supplementary Reconstruction Act of March 23, 
1867. The rate was fixed at twenty cents on the hundred 
dollars valuation, and the proceeds were required to be in 
the state treasury by December 1st. 3 

The convention had been in session ninety-two days when 
it adjourned with its work still uncompleted. 4 It had 
already cost the state nearly fifty per cent more than did the 
convention of 1866, which sat only fifty-five days and was 
severely criticised because of its slowness. 

1 Convention Journal, 780, 798, 858. 2 Ibid., 851-53. 

3 Ibid., 860 ; Gammel, VI, 52. 

4 Another reason for taking a recess, but hardly worth consider- 
ation because evidently brought forward to cover up the real one, 
was offered by the Austin Republican: namely, that there was so 
much danger of a "renewal of rebellion" by the disfranchised Demo- 
crats who were threatening to go armed to the polls and vote against 
the constitution, that it was necessary to avert a collision by post- 
poning the completion and submission of the constitution until the 
election and inauguration of Grant should make all things safe. See 
issue of August 31, 1868. 



230 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [230 

2. Conditions during the Recess — the Presidential 
Election 

Despite the fact that Texas was now under the unham- 
pered control of General Reynolds, 1 the late summer and 
fall of 1868 saw no apparent abatement of the general dis- 
order and lawlessness. The negroes here and there were be- 
ginning to show the effects of the teachings of reckless car- 
pet-baggers and " scalawags " ; and though in the abstract 
the assertion of their new rights may seem just enough, 
the manner of the assertion was often such as to bring them 
into immediate collision with the whites. At Millican, on 
July 15th, a riot occurred because a mob of negroes, who 
were attempting to lynch another negro, refused to dis- 
perse at the order of a deputy sheriff. A posse of whites 
was gathered, a fight ensued, and a number of negroes were 
killed. Another difficulty, almost identical in circumstances, 
occurred at Houston, but here the patient determination 
of a number of prominent citizens prevented a general 
battle. There was trouble also at Tyler. The Texas Re- 
publican (Dem.) declared that these conflicts went to prove 
that the two races could not live together in harmony on a 
basis of equality. To the Radicals they were evidence of a 
plan for the deliberate extermination of the loyal citizens 
and " a renewal of rebellion ". 2 This belief was strength- 
enen by an affair which occurred at Jefferson early in Oc- 
tober. Geo. W. Smith, a carpet-bagger from New York, 
had become the leader of the negroes in that community, 
where they outnumbered the whites two to one, and by his 
conduct had aroused the bitter enmity of the latter. The 

1 Louisiana had been turned over to the new state government in 
June, 1868, and this left Texas alone to constitute the Fifth Military 
District. 

2 Texas Republican, Aug. 7, 1868; Austin Republican, July 22, 1868. 



231] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 23 1 

Jefferson Times declared that he had lived among the negroes 
on terms of social equality, had encouraged them in all man- 
ner of evil, and by incendiary speeches had constantly stirred 
up animosity and trouble between them and the whites. He 
was a member of the constitutional convention, and, on his 
return from its session, he became involved in a dispute with 
a white man. Smith brought up a gang of negroes to his 
support, wounded several white men, and then fled to the 
protection of the military, who turned him over to the civil 
authorities. He was jailed and strongly guarded by both 
citizens and soldiers, but a large body of armed men over- 
awed the guard, entered the jail, and killed him, along with 
two or three negroes taken with him. Under the caption, 
" Murder of an Infamous Scoundrel the Jefferson Times 
gave an account of the lynching and sought to justify it. 

Though condemned in the eyes of the law, [the lynching] 
was an unavoidable necessity. The sanctity of home, the peace 
and safety of society, the prosperity of the country, and the 
security of life itself demanded the removal of so base a 
villain. 1 

The Radical press, however, hailed Smith's death as that of 
a martyr to the Union and to free speech, and this was the 
version that was accepted at the North. Reynolds sent ad- 
ditional troops to Jefferson, proclaimed martial law there 
and arrested some thirty prominent citizens on the charge 
of murder. He held them in close confinement for about 
ten months for trial before a military commission, and 
ultimately five were convicted. 

In portions of northeastern Texas the general disorder 
was made worse by a series of feuds that involved whole 



1 Quoted in Texas Republican, Oct. 16, 1868. 



232 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[232 



communities. The most noted of these was the " Lee and 
Peacock War " in Hunt and Fannin Counties. The Pea- 
cock party was or claimed to be unionists, the Lees had been 
secessionists. From all accounts the former were the ag- 
gressors, though politics had nothing to do with the quarrel. 
Through the distorting medium of the Radical press the 
feud appeared as another effort of an armed band of rebels 
to exterminate Union men. The Peacocks made an advan- 
tageous alliance with the military, and General Reynolds 
offered a reward of $1,000 for the capture of Bob Lee, the 
head of his faction. In and about Hopkins County a great 
deal of trouble was caused by two bands of guerrillas under 
the leadership of B. F. Bickerstaff and Cullen Baker. They 
were strong enough to offer fight to the troops stationed in 
that vicinity ; they plundered several supply trains on the 
way to the soldiers; and they were therefore set down as 
evidence of prevailing disloyal sentiment and credited to the 
account of the Democratic party, though they had no dis- 
coverable political affiliations and were tolerated by the 
people generally only through fear. Large rewards were 
offered for their arrest, more troops were pushed into that 
region, and these bands were soon broken up. 1 

Bands of Ku Klux made their appearance in nearly all 
parts of the state, especially where the Loyal Union League 
had produced restlessness among the blacks. Sometimes 
giant horsemen, shrouded in ghostly white, some of them 
headless, passed at midnight through the negro settlements, 
disarming and frightening the superstitious freedmen out 
of their senses, but otherwise doing no harm. A community 
thus visited was usually quiet for some time thereafter. 
Sometimes, however, the matter did not stop with these 



1 Texas Republican, August 14, Sept. n; Austin Republican, Sept. 
15, Oct. 2, 1868. 



233] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 233 

comparatively harmless pranks. Now and then negroes and 
Radical whites, whose political activity made them particu- 
larly obnoxious, received written warnings couched in mys- 
terious and sanguinary terms, and embellished with fearful 
symbols. Though some of it was but " fantastic foolery ", 
some of it was not ; and if the warnings went unheeded, the 
offender was likely to be taken out and whipped, or even 
murdered. It is but fair to say, however, that in many cases 
the guilty parties proved to be reckless and irresponsible 
persons masquerading under the name of Ku Klux; and 
they only helped to bring the name of the organization into 
disrepute and to furnish campaign material to the Radicals. 1 
The Ku Klux in Texas seem not to have been a part of the 
general organization which operated east of the Mississippi, 
but rather imitative, local, and independent companies, 
generally of brief existence. 2 

Other means were sought for overcoming Radical in- 
fluence with the negroes. Democratic clubs passed resolu- 
tions to the effect that they would not give employment, 
assistance, or patronage to any man, white or black, that 
belonged to or acted with the Radical party. 3 Negro Demo- 
cratic-Conservative clubs were formed in opposition to the 
Union League and the Radicals, and special favor was 
shown in the way of employment and protection to the 
negroes who went into them. 4 But it could hardly have 

1 See report of Gen. J. J. Reynolds on affairs in Texas for 1868, in 
Austin Republican, Dec. 19; in Houston Telegraph, Dec. 17, 1868. 
Also printed in Convention Journal, 2nd sess., 110-112. 

2 W. H. Wood, " The Ku Klux Klan," in Texas Historical Quarterly, 
IX, 262-268. 

3 Texas Republican, Aug. 21, Oct. 30, 1868; Austin Daily Republican, 
Nov. 25, 1868. 

4 Texas Republican, Sept. 18, 1868; J. H. Fowler to E. M. Pease, MS. 
in Exec. Corres. 



234 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[234 



been expected that many freedmen would long be satisfied 
in the party that was so desperately bent upon shutting 
them out of participation in politics, and the superior attrac- 
tions offered in the Radical camp gradually enticed most 
of them away. 

On October 5th, General Reynolds ordered a special elec- 
tion in the counties of Falls, Bell, and McClennan to fill a 
vacancy in the convention caused by the death of Wm. E. 
Oakes. New boards of registrars were appointed in each 
county, headed by officers of the army, with directions to 
revise the lists of voters registered in that district. The im- 
portance of this lay in the fact that the commander issued 
to the registrars a set of instructions very similar to the 
secret memoranda used earlier by Sheridan and Griffin. In 
fact it gave more explicit directions as to the persons to be 
forbidden registration, under the acts of Congress of March 
23d, and July 19, 1867, by enumerating every office created 
by state law since 1845. 1 Reynolds's instructions were 
wholly within the law, as Sheridan's were not when first 
issued; but they rigorously went to the very extremity of 
the law in the way of disfranchising the whites. The Austin 
Republican expressed great satisfaction with the order be- 
cause a similar one could be expected at the next general 
state election, and invited the disfranchised rebels to " howl 
to their heart's content " over the fact that it was a conden- 
sation of all of Griffin's orders, including the secret circular. 
The rebels did " howl ", but without effect. 2 

1 Special Orders, nos. 49 and 51, printed in Austin Daily Republican, 
Oct. 8, 1868. It will be remembered that the second Supplementary 
Reconstruction Act had declared any person disqualified from voting 
who had ever held any Federal or state office and afterward engaged 
in rebellion, " whether he had taken an oath to support the Constitu- 
tion of the United States or not." 

2 Austin Republican, Oct. 9, Nov. 25 ; Houston Telegraph, Oct. 14, 
15, 1868. 



235] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 235 

The impending Presidential election overshadowed for a 
time in interest and importance all other political matters. 
State politics, in fact, were at a standstill. With no imme- 
diate local campaign in sight the parties were doing little 
but prepare their organizations for a future trial of strength. 
The Democrats held a convention at Bryan, July 7th 
and 8th, where was adopted the usual string of resolutions 
attacking radicalism in both state and nation, but no state 
ticket was nominated. The Republicans held their state 
convention at Austin on August 12th to 14th, as has already 
been noted, and adopted a platform in conformity with the 
national platform of their party ; but because the new consti- 
tution was as yet uncompleted and their own party was 
splitting in two, they also refused to put out a ticket. All 
eyes were turned northward on the struggle between Grant 
and Seymour, for upon its outcome depended to a very great 
degree the immediate political future of Texas. The elec- 
tion of Grant would mean not only national endorsement 
of the reconstruction policy of Congress, but the perpetua- 
tion of Radical power in the state. If, on the other hand, the 
Democrats should succeed in carrying Seymour into the 
presidency and secure a majority in the lower house of Con- 
gress, it was certain that the South would get more liberal 
treatment. Many believed it would result in declaring in- 
valid and setting aside the acts of the " Rump Congress ", 
from which the representatives of ten states had been ex- 
cluded — especially the acts which particularly affected those 
states — and that, in Texas, not only the radical constitu- 
tional convention would never re-assemble, but Pease and 
his fellow officials would be swept away and the Throck- 
morton administration restored. 

In the presidential election Texas could have no part, 
since, by a joint resolution of Congress passed July 20, 
1868, all states not reorganized under the Reconstruction 



236 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[236 



Acts and readmitted to the Union, were to be excluded from 
the electoral college. However, the resolution did nc ex- 
pressly forbid the holding of an election for presidential 
electors, and the idea grew up that the election should be 
held anyway on the chance that somehow the votes might 
be counted, especially if the election should be a very close 
one. It is hard to see how any one expected any result of 
this kind without a resort to force — though some may have 
been willing to go to that extremity — but it is possible that 
the plan was encouraged by certain northern Democrats. 1 
The Democratic state executive committee itself nominated 
a full ticket of electors for Texas, which the party papers 
carried at the head of their columns. The manner in which 
the election was to be called and held presented considerable 
difficulty. An act of 1848 governing elections made it the 
duty of the governor to issue a proclamation requiring the 
chief justice of each county to cause the election to be held 
in each precinct; but this Pease would, of course, refuse to 
do, nor could it be expected that without his order the county 
justices would take any action themselves. 2 It was urged 
by some Democratic papers that, in the event of Pease's re- 
fusing to act, the Democratic executive committee should 
suggest the manner provided by law in which the people 
themselves should hold the election; and some others went 

1 "About your being allowed to vote, be not alarmed ; we shall see 
that Texas is represented. Vote, by all means." From letter of Geo. 
H. Pendleton (Ohio) to S. Kinney, August 21, 1868, printed in 
Houston Times, Sept. 13, 1868, and quoted in Austin Republican, Sept. 
30, 1868. It is proper to state that this letter was later denounced by 
Pendleton as a forgery. 

2 The Austin Republican insisted that an act of 1861 changing the 
law of 1848 to fit the Confederate system, in fact repealed it without 
substituting a valid one in its stead; and that therefore there was 
now no Texas law in existence governing the subject. See issues of 
Sept. 1 and 28, 1868. 



237] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 237 

so far as to demand that Throckmorton, as the rightful 
governor, should issue the necessary proclamation. 1 The 
former plan was adopted, and on September 28th, W. M. 
Walton, who had been attorney-general in the Throck- 
morton administration and was now chairman of the ex- 
ecutive committee, issued a circular " to the qualified elec- 
tors of the State of Texas ", reciting the law, the failure of 
the governor, and the probable failure of the county justices 
to perform their duties as prescribed by the law, and recom- 
mending that the said electors peaceably assemble at their 
usual voting places on November 3rd, appoint a presiding 
officer to act at the election and proceed without any violence 
or disturbance to vote for electors for President and Vice- 
President of the United States, and that the presiding officer 
make duplicate returns of the votes cast, one to the county- 
justice, the other to the executive committee. On the same 
day Walton sent a letter to General Reynolds, inclosing his 
circular and requesting that, as there was no law actually 
forbidding the election, that he himself either order it or 
have Governor Pease do it, or else allow the people to hold 
it themselves. Reynolds promptly refused to do any of these 
and on the next day issued a special order reciting the joint 
resolution of Congress above mentioned and adding thereto : 

No election for electors of President and Vice-President of 
the United States will be held in the State of Texas on the 
third of November next. Any assemblages, proceedings, or 
acts for such purpose are hereby prohibited, and all citizens 
are admonished to remain at home or attend to their ordinary 
business on that day. 2 

As it was useless to go further, Walton issued another 

1 Texas Republican, Oct. 9, 1868. 

2 Special Orders no. 44, Sept. 29, printed in Austin Republican, 
Sept. 30, 1868. 



238 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 

short circular advising his fellow Democrats of Reynolds's 
attitude and stating that it was now their duty not to at- 
tempt to vote. Their dejection was for a short time turned 
to joy by the news that President Johnson had caused 
Grant, as General of the Army, to issue an order reciting a 
law of Congress forbidding the military to interfere in elec- 
tions. It was rumored that this was intended to counter- 
mand Reynolds's order and " put a wet blanket over mili- 
tary despotism in Texas " ; but it was soon discovered that 
the order had reference only to the states recognized by Con- 
gress as in the Union, and that Special Orders no. 44 would 
stand. 1 The Democrats derived a certain satisfaction soon 
afterwards from the publication of orders relieving General 
Reynolds from command in Texas and naming General E. 
R. S. Canby, recently in command in the Carolinas, as his 
successor. 2 

In the meantime both parties were awaiting with some 
apprehension the elections in the North. The result was 
foreshadowed in various elections held in doubtful states in 
October, but the Democrats seemed wholly unprepared for 
the avalanche that came on November 3rd. They saw Radi- 
calism triumphant, and themselves demoralized, helpless. 

1 For circulars of Walton and correspondence with Reynolds see 
Texas Republican, Oct. 23, 1868; also Austin Republican, Oct. 5, 13 
and 22. 

2 What the reasons were for Reynolds's removal, or whether there 
were any outside of the mere routine of the war department, was not 
divulged; but numerous conjectures were indulged in. One was that 
he had aroused the powerful hostility of army contractors; another, 
that his instructions to the registrars of Bell County to disregard 
special pardons by the President in cases of disqualified persons ap- 
plying for registration, had aroused Mr. Johnson's resentment; and 
still another, that his interference with the action of a district court 
in Washington county, in the case of the heirs of J. C. Clark, in order 
to continue the case, was the cause. Austin Republican, Nov. 6, 7, 10, 
13 and 24, 1868. 



[238 



2 39] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 239 

" All our hopes for a return to good government [in Texas] 
have passed away," said the Texas Republican. Its Radical 
namesake, on the other hand, professed that it was 

with no feeling of exultation but with devout thankfulness that 
we publish the great victory of yesterday. It relieves us of 
the most painful apprehensions of persecution and outrage; 
and it assures us of the existence of a moral force in the nation 
not only able but determined to protect the loyal men of the 
South. 

Now that the election of Grant had assured their power 
for the next four years at least, the Republicans of Texas 
were better able to turn their attention once more to the re- 
construction of the state. The convention was to reassemble 
early in December, and there was much to be done before 
that time in the way of harmonizing, if possible, the dis- 
cordant factions of their party. When the first session 
ended, there seemed to be a genuine desire on the part of 
members of both factions to come to some sort of agreement, 
but the weeks passed without tangible result. Even the heat 
of the national campaign was not sufficient to weld the sev- 
ered parts. The Davis faction still grumbled over the rejec- 
tion of their ab initio doctrine and of the division of the 
state, and threatened to oppose any constitution not embody- 
ing their ideas. The quarrel between the two factional or- 
gans, the San Antonio Express and the Austin Republican, 
had never been made up, but constantly grew more bitter. 
Private quarrels that boded ill for any general harmony had 
grown up between certain members of the convention. 
Morgan Hamilton had returned from his Washington mis- 
sion as bitter as ever against his brother and his brother's 
following. Nor were all the hard words on one side. The 
regulars, as the Jack Hamilton faction termed themselves, 
denounced the bolters from the state convention who were 



240 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [240 

now threatening opposition to the new constitution, as de- 
serters and political bushwhackers, who would jeopardize the 
welfare of the party and the state to satisfy private grudges 
and ambitions. Each faction still maintained its own state 
executive committee and refused to recognize that of the 
other. 

Besides this unyielding factional antipathy another fac- 
tor that promised to be a disturbing one was the question of 
suffrage, or rather the extent to which the rebels should 
be disfranchised. Governor Pease, as has been stated, re- 
commended in his first message to the convention that 
a sufficient number should be denied the suffrage to 
place the state government in the hands of the " loyal ", 
and the subject was reported on by committee, but was not 
reached in debate before adjournment. The general dis- 
position at that time had been to follow out the suggestion 
of Pease, but the sweeping national victory seemed to ad- 
mit of a more generous policy, and several of the moderate 
leaders, such as A. J. Hamilton, Caldwell, and J. L. Haynes, 
chairman of the " regular " Republican executive com- 
mittee, had become convinced that the best interests, not only 
of the state but also of their party, demanded no further 
restriction of the franchise than that already provided in 
Amendment XIV to the Constitution of the United States. 
The Davis faction was, of course, almost solidly opposed to 
this policy, as were not a few of Hamilton's own friends, of 
whom the most influential perhaps was A. H. Longley, edi- 
tor of the party organ, the Austin Republican. It was 
argued by the latter that to admit the rebels to the ballot 
would endanger the supremacy of the Republican party and, 
therefore, of truly republican institutions ; that their undying 
malice, manifested in persecutions and assassinations, their 
bitter opposition to negro suffrage, the bulwark of the 



241 ] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 241 

" loyal " party, and to any constitution embodying that 
principle, should not be rewarded by giving them a chance 
to seize upon political power. The recent action of the 
Democrats in the Georgia legislature in unseating all the 
negro members of that body was cited in warning of what 
the Democrats of Texas might be expected to do. It was 
claimed that " if the late election meant anything, it meant 
that the loyal people of the United States were unwilling for 
the late rebels to exercise power in this Republic." 1 The 
advocates of the liberal policy answered that, in the first 
place, disfranchisement would almost certainly involve the 
defeat of the constitution unless Congress could first be in- 
duced so to amend the Reconstruction Acts as to prevent 
the rebels from voting upon it; and Congress would not be 
likely to do a thing so contrary to the policy of the Re- 
publican party, as expressed in the great Amendment and 
the Acts. In the second place such a measure would arouse 
the bitterest discord when quiet was most desirable, and 
leave a heritage of hatred against the Republican party that 
would ruin its future in Texas. Lastly, nothing could be 
more dangerous to the welfare of the state and of the 
negroes themselves than to give all political power into the 
untrained hands of these new citizens and a few white office- 
seekers. It would narrow the struggle to one of races, and 
would inevitably in a few years result in the overthrow of 
the negro and in his disfranchisement in retaliation. 2 

The difference of opinion on this question was not likely 
to cause serious division among the regulars, but it endan- 
gered their control of the convention until they could agree 
among themselves. The Democrats had no part in this 

1 Austin Republican, Sept. 10, Oct. 19, 27, Nov. 23 and Dec. 2, 1868. 

2 For an able summary of the arguments against disfranchisement, see 
Article of J. L. Haynes in Austin Republican, Dec. 2, 1868. 



242 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [242 

controversy, but had to confine themselves to gloomy pro- 
phecies of disfranchisement, helpless protests against negro 
suffrage, and now and then pleas for a qualified negro suf- 
frage based upon either property or education. 

3. Second Session 

Unreconciled and full of mutual suspicions, alternating 
between offensive innuendoes and appeals for harmony, the 
two factions of Republicans came together in December to 
finish the constitution. The attendance was never as full 
as in the previous session. During the recess one member 
had died, another had been killed, four had resigned; four 
others never returned to their duties, and several others 
were delayed until very late. 1 

The beginning of the session was not auspicious for har- 
mony, despite the appeal of the Austin Republican to the 
factions to avoid, in the interest of party success, " the bick- 
erings, the heart-burnings and the wrangling " that charac- 
terized the first session. When it was proposed to renew 
the subscription to newspapers, a personal encounter was 
almost precipitated between Caldwell and Morgan Hamilton 
because the latter bitterly attacked the political affiliations 
of the Austin Republican, 2 Immediately afterwards a com- 
mittee was appointed, with Morgan Hamilton chairman, to 
consider a general reduction of expenses of the convention, 

1 Died, W. H. Mullins (Dem.) ; G. W. Smith (Rep.), killed at Jeffer- 
son; resigned, Talbot (Rep.), Crigsby (Rep.), Boyd (Dem.), and 
Muckleroy (Dem.) ; absent, Johnson, Coleman, Foster and Yarborough. 
Johnson soon resigned, Foster and Coleman left the state, the latter, a 
carpet-bagger, under charges of bigamy, and horse-theft. W. W. Mills 
returned only for the last week of the session. 

2 Convention lournal, 2nd sess, 14-15; Austin Republican, Dec. 11, 12 
and 14, 1868. Just before this, Morgan Hamilton had made offensive 
allusions to a public speech of Caldwell's delivered in Jefferson just 
after the killing of G. W. Smith, who was of the Davis faction. 



243] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 243 

and when it reported its chairman was able to get in an- 
other thrust at the organ of the other party. These com- 
paratively trivial things were enough to awaken the old 
hostility, which never slept again. 

It was known before the convention assembled that the 
question of division of the state would come up again. 
Upon this question the Davis faction had resolved to make 
their fight. Ab initio appeared hopelessly dead ; but division 
had commanded a slight majority in the summer session 
until it began to crowd out other matters, and it seemed a 
promising issue. From the very start, therefore, a fight 
was begun to secure reconsideration or rescission of the 
Thomas resolution, passed in July, setting aside the subject. 
On December 10th, Newcomb of Bexar moved to rescind. 
Thomas replied with another motion to the effect that the 
convention would entertain nothing that did not relate to 
the formation of the constitution. A trial of strength on 
this last resulted in its rejection by 35 to 24. The anti- 
divisionists resolved, therefore, to filibuster against all at- 
tempts to rescind the original Thomas resolution, and when 
Newcomb's resolution came up next day it was met by a 
" call of the house." 1 Sixteen members were absent, most 
of whom had never reported for this session. In a rage, 
Newcomb moved to adjourn sine die, and was supported 
by twelve other members. Every time the resolution came 
up thereafter for nearly three weeks, it was checked in the 
same way. 2 Feeling was rapidly rising. An effort of 

1 Under no. 55 of the convention rules, fifteen members could sustain 
a "call of the house" on any measure. No further consideration of 
this or any other measure could be had until all the members absent 
without satisfactory excuse had been brought in. Designed to secure 
action by all the members, it was used solely to obstruct measures. 

2 One whole day, December 15, was spent in calls of the house and 
voting by " yeas " and " nays " on motions to adjourn. Convention 
Journal, 2nd sess., 51-65. 



244 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[244 



McCormick to amend the rules so as to allow consideration 
of other matters pending a call was voted down by the angry 
divisionists. 1 Possibly foreseeing that they could not hold 
out forever, the " anti's " endeavored to secure the passage 
of a resolution binding the convention to submit the question 
— along with the constitution — to a popular vote. This also 
was voted down by the suspicious divisionists, for fear 
that it might in some way embarrass them later. 2 

It was urged in extenuation of reviving the question that 
the members of Congress had indicated that Texas must 
take the initiative before the national legislature could act, 
and that the popular sentiment for division had grown 
enormously since the summer session. It was argued on the 
other side that the convention was restricted solely to the 
powers granted it by the Reconstruction Acts, and that these 
had given it no authority whatever to consider such a 
question; that by the Constitution of the United States, the 
matter must be passed upon by the state legislature; and 
that before anything was done the people should be allowed 
to vote upon it, since the creation of additional states would 
entail heavy expense for duplicating buildings and offices. 
The southwestern delegates, among whom were Davis, 
Degener, Newcomb, Varnell, and Morgan Hamilton, were 
determined not to depend wholly upon the convention and 
appointed a committee of seven to draft a constitution for 
" West Texas," to be submitted to Congress for approval.* 
It does not appear that they expected to submit it to their 
people first, though they asserted that west Texas had a 

1 Convention Journal, 2nd sess., 73. 

2 Ibid., 95, 97-8; debates in Austin Republican, Dec. 30 and 31, 1868. 

3 This Committee of seven is given by the Austin Republican as 
Davis, Degener, Newcomb, M. Hamilton, Keuchler, Jordan, Varnell. 
See issue of Jan. 4, 1869, also of Dec. 21, 23, 30, 31, 1868. 



245] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 245 

right to separate itself from the rest of the state without 
waiting for the permission of the people in the other parts, 
— a statement of the right of secession that must have 
sounded strange from the lips of radical unionists. In this 
they seem to have received the sanction of the divisionists 
of east Texas, and together they agreed to prevent the con- 
vention from completing the constitution until it had agreed 
to division. The way was opened for them on December 
29, when, a call of the house having failed, Newcomb's mo- 
tion to rescind the Thomas resolution finally came to a vote 
and was passed. The question now took a sudden turn, to 
explain which necessitates a slight digression. 

Much had been said in the press and on the stump of the 
disorder in the state, and of the hostility manifested toward 
radicals. Maintaining that rebel intolerance would not 
permit of free discussion or a fair and free vote, many in- 
fluential Republicans were of the opinion that no general 
election should be held either to vote on the constitution or 
for officers under it, until the fall of 1869. On Decem- 
ber 16, J. R. Burnett introduced a resolution providing for 
the appointment of a special committee of thirteen to en- 
quire into and report upon the condition of the state in this 
respect; and in case they found conditions unfavorable, to 
report what additional legislation was necessary to effect the 
speedy reorganization of a loyal civil government that 
would protect the people in their lives, liberty, and property, 
and meet their present necessities for special and general 
legislation. The resolution passed. 1 Of those appointed, 
eight were for division, five against it; of the latter, two 
were Democrats. The report of this committee, rendered 
December 23, was based upon statements of General 
Reynolds, Governor Pease, Bureau officers, judicial and 

1 It was foreshadowed in Austin Republican of Dec. 14 and 16, 1868. 



246 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [246 

other civil officials, and private citizens, and asserted that no 
fair and impartial election could be held at this time and 
probably not until several months after the inauguration 
of Grant, though it was admitted that there was general 
evidence of a decrease of crime and lawlessness and of bet- 
ter feeling toward the government. With regard to the ad- 
ditional legislation necessary, a resolution was reported 
calling upon Congress to give the convention the powers of 
a state legislature; provided that every act passed by the 
convention should be approved by the provisional governor 
before it should take effect, or else be passed by a two- 
thirds vote after his veto, and that the provisional governor 
should make removals and appointments of state officers 
and that no other oath should be required of such officers 
except that prescribed in the Reconstruction Acts for electors 
and the oath of office prescribed by the state constitution. 
The reason assigned for setting aside the test oath still re- 
quired of all appointees, was that it shut out many com- 
petent and loyal persons and left the offices to become 
vacant or to remain in the hands of the disloyal. What 
relations this anomalous government was to have with the 
military was not stated, but the effect would have been vir- 
tually to supplant the district commander by the governor. 
The proposition is curious as a declaration from Republicans 
that the Reconstruction Acts had failed. 1 

Two minority reports were made. One by Armstrong 
and Kirk, the two Democrats, denied at some length the 
allegations of the majority with respect to the wide extent 
of lawlessness and the absence of freedom of speech and 
of the press, — citing against the last ten very radical papers 
then flourishing in various parts of the state. The other 

1 This statement was frequently made in debate by members of the 
Davis faction. 



247] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 247 

minority report was by James P. Newcomb, the rabid 
divisionist, who insisted that the temper, loyalty, and conduct 
of the people living west of the Colorado River, — in the 
proposed state of West Texas, — were exceptionally good, 
and that those people should be allowed a separate state 
government, or else that the dual form of military and civil 
government, which was a manifest failure, should be re- 
placed by a territorial government in order that the United 
States might be able to maintain order and peace. 

As soon as the reports were taken up, it became evident 
that the majority report was not acceptable to the Davis 
faction, who had no intention of prolonging and increas- 
ing the power of Pease's administration, and who were 
not so much concerned about a general election as about 
their project of division. A substitute, therefore, was of- 
fered by Davis, declaring that the extent of the territory, 
the conflicting sectional interests and general disorganiza- 
tion rendered, in the opinion of the convention, a division of 
Texas necessary ; and that six commissioners elected by the 
convention, one each from the northern, eastern, middle, 
and western sections, and two from the state at large, should 
be sent to Washington to acquaint Congress with these con- 
ditions and necessities. Nothing could make clearer the 
determination of this party to force division upon the con- 
vention as the paramount issue. For two weeks the subject 
was thrashed out in a committee of the whole, consuming 
during that time almost exclusive attention. On the night 
of January 13 the substitute was reported from the com- 
mittee, and a furious fight began to get it adopted over the 
majority report. The anti-divisionists filibustered success- 
fully until nearly daylight. 1 The next day the president 



1 Convention Journal, 2nd sess. 267-278. 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[2 4 8 



wrote to General Canby, 1 explaining the impossibility of 
getting a vote under a " call of the convention " until four 
absent members should arrive, lamenting the consequent 
waste of time, and requesting the commanding general to 
apply whatever remedy he was authorized to use. 2 

In the meantime, the filibustering continued and the divis- 
ionists decided to amend the rules. Under cover of making 
inquiry concerning the tardy delegates, a committee was 
appointed to propose the necessary change and immediately 
reported a new rule to the effect that only those members 
who had been present within five days preceding a call 
should be counted. The report came up for passage on 
January 16, and was promptly met by a call. Here the 
president, Davis, clearly violated the rules by entertaining 
the resolution anyway, — reporting the convention as full 
despite the four absentees, — and hurrying it to a vote. Im- 
mediately the body was in an uproar. The anti-divisionists 
saw the ground cut from under their feet by these tactics, 
and three of them, — Bryant of Grayson, A. J. Hamilton, 
and Cole, a Democrat, — refused to vote and were placed 
under arrest. The last two agreed to vote, and Bryant re- 
signed. 3 The new rule was declared adopted by a vote of 
42 to 28. Thus armed against a call, the divisionists 
hurried immediately to a vote on the more important meas- 
sure and succeeded in substituting Davis's resolution for 
the majority report of Burnett's committee. 4 It came up 

1 General Canby had assumed command of the District about the 
middle of December. 

2 Four delegates were still absent : Mills, Foster, Coleman and Yar- 
borough. Convention Journal, 2nd sess. 287-288. 

3 He was later allowed to withdraw his resignation. 

4 Convention Journal, 2nd sess., 300-304. See Austin Republican, 
Jan. 18, 1869. 



249] 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868- 1869 



249 



again for final passage on the 20th, and probably in antici- 
pation of a " call one anti-divisionist, Sumner, deliber- 
ately walked out in order to prevent a vote. When the call 
was made and he could not be found, the majority forth- 
with expelled him by a vote of 38 to 32, — the president rul- 
ing, again in defiance of parliamentary law, that a vote of 
two-thirds was not necessary to expel. 1 The Davis re- 
solution was then finally passed, and the next day was fixed 
for electing the commissioners for which it provided. Un- 
able any longer to make use of the call, the minority ab- 
sented themselves next day and broke the quorum. On the 
second day they returned and A. J. Hamilton read a protest, 
signed by thirty members, against Sumner's expulsion, but 
the majority would not allow it to be spread on the minutes 
and themselves appointed a committee to give their own 
version of the affair. 2 Excitement was at white heat. At- 
tention was now turned upon the election of the six com- 
missioners to Washington. The majority succeeded on the 
first ballot in electing, as the two delegates at large, E. J. 
Davis and J. W. Flanagan. On the second ballot for the 
representative from north Texas, they also won, electing 
Whitmore. The minority offered no further candidates and 
allowed Burnett and Morgan Hamilton to be elected from 
east and central Texas; but by uniting upon Varnell, a 
divisionist, they beat Newcomb for the western district. 
The victory of the divisionists was not without qualifica- 

1 Objection was made that the resolution to expel was out of order 
because the convention could not transact other business while under 
a call. This also Davis overruled. Convention Journal, 325. See com- 
ment in Austin Republican, Jan. 21, 1869. 

2 Convention Journal, 2nd sess., 330-331. Hamilton's protest is 
printed in Austin Republican, Jan. 23. The answer to it, i. e. the com- 
mittee's report, is in the Journal, 521-524. 



250 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [250 

tions. While they were holding back every other important 
measure until division could be accomplished, every news- 
paper in the state, except the San Antonio Express, was 
either denouncing the measure or at least refusing its sup- 
port, and the citizens of San Antonio, the proposed capital 
for " West Texas," and of New Braunfels, the second larg- 
est town in that district, declared against it in mass-meeting. 1 
Although in entire control of the commission, the division- 
ists were weakened somewhat by the fact that in no form or 
manner had the wishes of the people been consulted on this 
important subject, while the action of the convention in 
considering it was wholly outside the duties contemplated 
by the Reconstruction Acts. Moreover, a reaction was 
threatened against the high-handed methods by which the 
victory was won. The Austin Republican announced the 
next day after the commissioners were elected that the 
fight was not over and that a delegation from the other 
side also would go to Washington. 

Now that the troublesome question of division was out of 
the way, the delegates were free to turn their attention to 
other things. More than a month and a half had been con- 
sumed in fighting over that subject; the only other matters 
considered had been of a special and legislative character, 
and not a thing had been done towards completing the con- 
stitution except to appoint a committee to correct and revise 
so much of it as had been engrossed at the previous ses- 
sion. 2 There had been much criticism of the body even by 
Republican journals, because of its apparent disregard of its 
proper business. Flake's Bulletin had expressed disgust 

1 Texas Republican, Dec. 18, 1868; Houston Telegraph, Jan. 14; San 
Antonio Daily Herald, Jan. 14, 1869; Austin Republican, Jan. 13 and 
18, 1869. 

2 Convention Journal, 255, 260. 



251] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 25 1 

with its methods in the preceding summer and now re- 
iterated the advice to the members to adjourn and go home. 
The Austin Republican criticised the delegates for " their 
waste of time and money, their frivolous and long debates 
upon foreign issues, their indiscriminate and lavish legis- 
lation, their long delay in the formation of a constitution," 
which had " brought reproach upon the Republican party 
of our state " ; and especially censured them for the vast 
amount of legislative work they had presumed to do : 

They have assumed to erect new counties; on the faith of 
their action, court houses have been built ; they have authorized 
the levy and collection of taxes under which interests have 
grown up ; they have chartered railways and immigration com- 
panies, in which large amounts of capital have been, or soon 
will be invested. 1 In a hundred ways they have put under 
pledge to support any constitution they may present a hundred 
powerful interests. 



The Democratic press was more contemptuous in its com- 
ments, and only one paper, the Houston Telegraph, showed 
any disposition at this time to make the best of a bad situ- 
ation and treat the product of the convention with less than 
open hostility. 

But though the way was now open for work on the con- 
stitution, many of the Davis faction showed no desire to 
take up that subject, for they were not pleased with that 
part already completed, and most of them were even more 
opposed to the liberal suffrage views now rapidly gaining 
adherents. Possibly, too, they expected their commis- 

1 The Liverpool and Texas Steamship company was granted $500,000 
in six per cent state bonds and half a million acres of land, the last to 
be given as subsidy for bringing immigrants, — forty acres for each im- 
migrant. Gammel, Laws of Texas, VI, 126-129. 



252 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [252 

sioners to Congress to bring about a division of Texas into 
several states, in which case there was no need of framing 
a constitution now. The commissioners were elected on 
Friday, January 22. On the following Monday, a resolu- 
tion was introduced by Adams for the purpose of shutting 
out any new legislative topics and confining attention to 
the constitution and such other matters as were already 
taken up. It passed, but against the opposition of most of 
the divisionists. 1 The next day the latter made an effort 
to adjourn the convention on February 1st, " to be reas- 
sembled at any time by the Commanding General, or by a 
majority of the committee to Washington." This revealed 
too much of their designs, and a substitute was offered to 
the effect that no adjournment should take place until a 
constitution had been framed for submission to the people 
and that no other business should be in order until this was 
done. The vote of 34 to 25, adopting the substitute, ex- 
pressed approximately the feeling for and against the con- 
stitution. 2 Under the operation of this resolution the con- 
vention began work, January 27, — just ten days before it 
was to adjourn, — upon the engrossed parts of the constitu- 
tion as revised by the special committee. 

Two days later the question of suffrage was reached, and 
here began the second great battle. The committee, con- 
trolled of course by the Davis or " ultra " faction, had re- 
ported a stringent provision disfranchising all who had 
previously been disqualified by the laws of the United 
States or by participation in the rebellion, and all who could 
not take a prescribed oath 3 almost as difficult as the famous 

1 Convention lournal, 2nd sess., 359-361. 

2 Ibid., 378-380. 

8 " I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm), . . . that I have not been 

disfranchised for participation in any rebellion or civil war against the 



253] THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 253 

iron-clad oath. On this issue, ex-Governor A. J. Hamilton, 
as champion of a most liberal and generous policy, per- 
formed one of his greatest services to the state. He set 
himself squarely against any and all attempts to disfran- 
chise the late rebels further than was already done by the 
Fourteenth Amendment. His following at first was com- 
paratively small : many of his friends who had supported 
him in other questions left him on this; the one newspaper 
that had always acted as the organ of his party remained 
silent throughout the struggle; but the sentiment for con- 
ciliation that had begun to spread after the election of Grant 
came to his aid ; and as the northern Republicans, one after 
another, gave expression to conciliatory views, his follow- 
ing increased. After some preliminary skirmishes, in which 
a proposition of the Democrats to exclude negroes from the 
ballot, and another, by Mundine, for woman suffrage, had 
been overwhelmingly voted down, the real fight began on a 
substitute offered by Thomas to the committee report, 
granting unrestricted suffrage. This was laid on the table 

United States, nor for felony committed against the laws of any state, 
or of the United States ; that I have never been a member of any 
state legislature nor held any executive or judicial office in any state and 
afterwards engaged in insurrection and rebellion in the United States 
or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof ; that I have never taken 
an oath as a member of the Congress of the United States, or as an 
executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of 
the United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection and rebellion 
against the United States, or given aid and comfort to the enemies 
thereof ; that I have not voted as a member of any convention or 
legislature in favor of an ordinance of secession; that I was not a 
member of any secret order hostile to the Government of the United 
States ; that as a minister of the Gospel or editor of a newspaper, I did 
not advocate secession, nor did I support rebellion and war against the 
United States, so help me God." Disabilities could be removed by a 
two-thirds vote of the legislature or by Congress. See Convention 
Journal, 1st sess., 568-579- 



254 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[254 



by a close vote, 34 to 31. Filibustering could not prevent 
the adoption, then, of the committee report, but Hamilton 
did not despair. The small group of Democrats came 
solidly to his side under the leadership of L. D. Evans. 
All his eloquence and all his powers as a parliamentary tac- 
tician and leader of men, he threw into the strugglq. 
Helped perhaps by a reaction against Davis's methods, only 
four days later Hamilton commanded a clear majority, and 
under cover of a substitute for the provision relating to 
the registration of voters, he reopened the whole question. 
His substitute was as follows : 

Section 1. Every male citizen of the United States, of the age 
of twenty-one years and upwards, not laboring under the 
disabilities named in this Constitution, without distinction of 
race, color or former condition, who shall be a resident of this 
State at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or who 
shall thereafter reside in this State one year, and in the county 
in which he offers to vote sixty days next preceding any 
election, shall be entitled to vote for all officers that are now, 
or hereafter may be, elected by the people, and upon all ques- 
tions submitted to the electors at any election; provided, that 
no person shall be allowed to vote or hold office who is now or 
hereafter may be disqualified therefor by the Constitution of 
the United States until such disqualifications shall be removed 
by the Congress of the United States; provided, further, that 
no person while kept in any asylum, or confined in any prison, 
or who has been convicted of any felony, or who is of unsound 
mind, shall be allowed to vote or hold office. 

An attempt to table was defeated by an overwhelming ma- 
jority, as was another to make more stringent the clause 
relating to disqualification. The Radicals struggled hard 
to secure other amendments, but the substitute was finally 
made a part of the constitution by a vote of 30 to 26, and 



255] 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 



255 



the victory was won. 1 The patriotism which could rise 
high enough to disregard the question of party advantage 
was not without its reward, if the gratitude of the white 
people of Texas for their rescue from political proscription 
may be accounted a reward. 2 

Another important part of the constitution, the article on 
education, was already disposed of between times. Two 
provisions of importance were added : one increasing the 
revenue for schools by imposition of a poll tax, and setting 
apart for the same purpose one-fourth of the annual state 
taxes; and the other directing the investment of the prin- 
cipal of the school fund in United States bonds. These 
measures were chiefly the work of A. P. McCormick. 3 

Two things now remained to be done. Provision must 
be made for printing the constitution and for ordering a 
general election at which the voters of the state should ac- 
cept or reject the constitution and vote for officers for the 
new government. Here troubles arose again. The Austin 
Republican had been publishing the journals of the conven- 

1 Convention Journal, 2nd sess., 482-486. 

2 The Houston Telegraph (Dem.), of Feb. 25, 1869, paid a glowing 
tribute to Governor Hamilton : " He stood as a break-water between 
us and the floods of ruin. He moved among breakers, shoals, 
and quicksands. He had to steer between Scylla and Charybdis, 
with the heavens overcast with clouds, and the storm howling all 
around him. ... If we reflect that he labored to give the ballot to 
those who had bitterly opposed him, that he placed himself in opposi- 
tion to extreme members in his own party, and even to his own brother ; 
that he labored for a people who he believed had wronged him ; that a 
large number of newspapers in the state were pouring abuse upon him 
even while he was laboring for the people; that he clothed us with the 
ballot at the imminent risk of having it used against himself, and that 
all of passion and even promise pointed out to him the opposite course 
as the one most for his interest, then indeed does he stand before us a 
patriot, firm, tried, and true, deserving the gratitude of our whole 
people of all parties." 

3 Convention Journal, 2nd sess., 417-422. 



256 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [256 

tion daily and was endeavoring to get the contract for print- 
ing the bound volumes of the journal and the new constitu- 
tion; but its ardent support of the moderates, especially its 
opposition to state division, had so angered the Davis fac- 
tion that they were determined the contract should go else- 
where. They therefore proposed that the Washington 
delegation should have the printing done somewhere in the 
North, and by filibustering, with the president's aid, they 
prevented the other proposition from coming to a final vote. 1 
They likewise opposed every move to have the constitution 
submitted to the people; and when, nevertheless, February 
5, an ordinance was crowded through, providing that the 
election for the constitution, and for state, district, and 
county officers, and members of Congress, should be held 
during the first week in July, they entered a written protest 
against the constitution itself. 2 This remarkable document, 
which seems to have been the work of Morgan Hamilton, 
attacked the constitution in two points, viz., its omission 
of the ab initio doctrine and its extension of the right of suf- 
frage to all those who voluntarily became the public enemy 
of the United States. 

The majority of the convention have deliberately removed 
from the constitution every safeguard for the loyal voter, 
white and black. They have stricken from that instrument 
the whole system of registry; they have repudiated the oath of 
loyalty contained in the reconstruction laws ; they have spurned 
the test of equal civil and political rights, and we do most 
solemnly call upon the registered voters of Texas to vindicate 
the national honor and the cause of right and justice by their 
votes. 3 

1 Convention lournal, 2nd sess., 437-441, 524-527; Austin Republican, 
Feb. 6, 1869. 

2 Ibid., 199, 509-510, 517-520. 

' A Ibid. Those signing the protest were, in order : M. C. Hamilton, 



257] 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 



257 



This was the declaration of war between the two factions, 
and here was the issue presented before the people. 

The convention was now seething with excitement. The 
bickerings and quarrels of the first session were as nothing 
compared with the animosity and altercations of this one. 
The two wings of Republicans had long since, as Davis him- 
self said, come to hate each other with a bitterness they 
had never felt toward their rebel and Democratic opponents, 
and the situation had steadily grown worse as the session 
progressed. If the apparent triumph of division and the 
expulsion of Sumner had greatly excited the Jack Hamilton 
party, the defeat of disfranchisement, added to that of ab 
initio, had infuriated their opponents no less. An incident 
will illustrate how far one side, at least, was carried away. 
One member, C. W. Bryant, of Harris County, a negro 
preacher, was indicted in Austin for rape upon an eleven- 
year-old colored girl, and the examining trial made his 
guilt perfectly evident; yet in the face of this evidence, 
the Davis faction, to which he belonged, resisted every ef- 
fort to expel the brute, for no other apparent reason than 
that they desired his vote. However, he was finally ex- 
pelled. 1 A number of personal encounters occurred and 
added to the general ill-feeling. 2 

The closing scenes formed a fitting climax to the story of 
party rancor and strife. The passage of the ordinance pro- 

J. P. Butler, H. C. Hunt, G. H. Slaughter, James Brown, A. Downing, 
J. P. Newcomb, J. H. Lippard, S. Mullins, N. M. Board, J. Keuchler, 
N. Patten, J. H. Wilson, E. Degener, R. K. Smith, E. J. Davis, Ralph 
Long (col.), G. T. Ruby (col.), W. Johnson (col.), B. F. Williams 
(col.), A. P. Jordan and W. F. Carter. 

1 Convention Journal, 2nd sess., 398-9, 441-44, 455, 459, 462-63; Austin 
Republican, Jan. 25, Feb. 1; Houston Telegraph, Feb. 11, 1869. 

2 Convention Journal, 2nd sess., 445-447 ; Austin Republican, Feb. 2,3; 
Houston Telegraph, Feb. 11, 1869. 



258 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [258 

viding for an election and for submitting the constitution 
to the people and the protest of the ultra-radicals had oc- 
curred on Friday morning, February 5. The passage of 
the resolution to give the printing to the Austin Republican, 
the last subject for controversy, was prevented by the presi- 
dent's declaring the convention adjourned. At the open- 
ing of the evening session only a few of Davis's supporters 
were present, and at first there was no quorum. A call of 
the house secured one. Thereupon the president had the 
secretary read a letter from General Canby to the effect 
that if the printing of the constitution were not provided 
for by the convention, he himself would attend to it. Mills 
accused Davis of influencing General Canby to write the 
letter and arraigned him severely for plotting to break up 
the convention in order to defeat reconstruction under the 
new constitution. He was called to order but refused to 
take his seat, and was ordered under arrest by the president, 
who over-ruled an objection that this required the authority 
of the convention. In the hubbub, Williams, a negro mem- 
ber in the Davis faction, resigned, and was followed by 
Ruby, and then by Newcomb, who declared the sittings 
were being prolonged " for the purpose of subsidizing a 
venalized press." The effect was to reduce the number 
present below the usual quorum, as was evidently intended; 
but Governor Hamilton raised the point that a majority of 
the actual members only constituted a quorum. Davis over- 
ruled it. A motion to adjourn was voted down, and a call 
of the house made; but Davis declared no call could be sus- 
tained unless he concurred, — a most highhanded ruling, — 
and declared the house adjourned until ten o'clock the next 
morning. As he left the chair, pandemonium broke loose, 
but the majority held together and elected M. L. Armstrong 
of Lamar as president pro tern. Hamilton, white with 



259] 



THE CONVENTION OF 1868-1869 



259 



anger, took the floor and poured forth upon Davis, who 
had not been allowed to leave the hall, such a torrent of 
invective as no man but Jack Hamilton was capable of 
delivering. Then an adjournment was had until 9.30 
next (Saturday) morning. 

Only the delegates of the Hamilton faction assembled in 
the morning. Davis would not come, even when sent for, 
and they proceeded without him. A committee was ap- 
pointed to confer with Canby about the printing; nothing 
else was done. The committee reported in the afternoon 
that the general advised the delegates to attend to whatever 
business there was and adjourn in due form. A committee 
of fifteen was then appointed to take charge of the records 
and the constitution and see that they were properly placed 
in the hands of the Commanding General. It was found 
that the papers had disappeared and that they were in the 
hands of an assistant secretary, A. J. Bennet, who was act- 
ing under the order of Davis. Bennet was arrested and 
gave up the papers. It was then decided to adjourn over to 
Monday. On Saturday evening, at the usual hour, Davis 
with two or three members of his faction came to the hall 
and declared the convention adjourned sine die. The same 
was done on Monday morning by the other party. 1 

Forty-five delegates, a fair majority of the membership 
at the close, signed the constitution. 2 The records were 

1 Convention Journal, 2nd sess., 527-529, Austin Republican, Feb. 6, 
8 and 10, 1869. All the minutes of the proceedings Friday night, after 
the resignation of Ruby, and of the sessions of Saturday morning and 
afternoon and Monday morning were suppressed in the permanent 
journal printed under the auspices of Davis's administration in 1870. 
They are given, however, in the Austin Republican of Feb. 8. For 
an account of the closing scenes, see also Houston Telegraph, Feb. 11, 
and Galveston News, Feb. 14, 1869. 

2 The names are given in Gammel, VII, 430. 



26o 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



found to be in such confusion that General Canby appointed 
a special commission, consisting of J. W. Thomas of the one 
side, Morgan Hamilton from the other, and one of his staff 
officers, to assist the secretary, Tunstall, in putting them 
into shape for printing. 1 

The two sessions of the convention had cost the state 
more than $200,000 for five months of wrangling, not more 
than one month of which was spent in actual consideration 
of the constitution. 2 

1 Ten thousand copies were printed for distribution. The Austin 
Republican got to print them after all. 

2 The list of appropriations made and approved is as follows : 



First Session: 

Mileage, per diem, and contingent expenses $100,000 

Second Session: 

Mileage and per diem 50,000 

Publishing completed parts of Constitution 3,600 

Contingent expenses 15,000 

Printing and contingent expenses 6,000 

Mileage and per diem 20,000 

Delegation to Washington 6,000 



Total $200,600 



CHAPTER X 



The Campaign and Election of 1869 

1. The Appeal to Congress 

For the present there was no thought of reconciliation 
on either side. Though foiled in the convention, the radi- 
cals, — a name now enjoyed exclusively by the Davis party, 
— still hoped to defeat the constitution and divide the state 
through their control over the commission elected to Wash- 
ington. The moderates, or conservatives, were determined 
to prevent this by sending a delegation of their own. With- 
in less than a week after the convention adjourned, both 
were on their way, and political interest was anxiously cen- 
tered upon their work at the national capital. 1 

The rival delegations arrived in Washington about the 
last of February, and at once sought interviews with Gen- 
eral Grant and the congressional leaders. The issue be- 
tween them is very clearly defined in the memorials which 
they each laid before Congress. That of the radical dele- 
gation, dated March 2, was drawn up by Morgan Hamilton, 
generally accounted the ablest as well as the most fanatical 
of that party. After explaining their authority to act in 

1 The radical delegation consisted of E. J. Davis, Morgan Hamilton, 
J. W. Flanagan, Varnell and Burnett, official delegates of the conven- 
tion, and Newcomb, Degener, H. Taylor, Ruby and C. W. Bryant, who 
was still under indictment. The moderates were more numerous, the 
list of their delegates including A. J. Hamilton, Jas. H. Bell, J. L. 
Haynes, C. Caldwell, Geo. W. Paschal, 'M. L. Armstrong, McCormick, 
Sumner, Buffington, Alexander Rossy and Donald Campbell. Austin 
Republican, March 16, 1869. 

261] 261 



262 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[262 



the name of the convention, the memorialists declared that 
the condition of society in Texas " has been, and is still, very- 
desperate ". In support of this statement the statistics, tabu- 
lated months before by the convention committee on law- 
lessness and violence, were cited, as were the report of 
Reynolds and the statement of Governor Pease made in 
December ; 1 and it was declared that conditions had stead- 
ily grown worse since Grant's election. This was to prove 
that no fair election could be held in Texas. Because these . 
conditions had been due to " Johnson's policy ", it had been 
believed that a convention elected under the acts of Con- 
gress would bring about a solution satisfactory to the loyal 
people, a hope that had not been realized. 

A considerable number of members, calling themselves Repub- 
licans, did not in their actions come up to that firmness for 
Republican principles which their constituents had a right 
to expect. A constitution was framed which gives no satis- 
faction or security to the loyal people of either color, but which 
is heartily endorsed by the Democratic or rebel party and a 
few (so-called) Republicans. This new constitution recognizes 
the validity of rebel legislation, so far as not prohibited by the 
constitution and laws of the United States, thus putting the 
legislation during the rebellion on the same footing as that of 
the most loyal states. . . . [It] abolishes the wise safeguard of- 
fered by the reconstruction acts with regard to the right of 
suffrage, allowing in this respect the utmost latitude to the 
disloyal. 

That the constitution would be accepted by the white rebel 
majority, the memorialists regarded as certain, since a fair 
canvass could not be made of the colored voters. The 
legislative, executive, and judicial departments would be 
filled with " ex-Confederates and so-called Republicans." 
Such a fearful condition cried aloud for a remedy: 
1 Supra, p. 245. 



263] 



THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 



263 



The new constitution should not be submitted to the people 
at such an early date as the resolution contemplates [July 5], 
if it is to be submitted at all. . . . Our only hope rests [in a 
postponement of the election] until genuine peace is restored, 
and . . . [Congress intervenes] ... to secure a remodeling 
of the constitution, in consonance with the necessities and spirit 
of the times. 1 

The memorialists then went on to an argument for the divis- 
ion of Texas into three states, as another part of the remedy, 
— urging the diversity of interests and population of the 
various sections, and the fact that a majority of the con- 
vention had endorsed the plan. However, the chief rea- 
son urged in favor of division was that it would offer the 
loyalists a better chance to get entire control, since smaller 
administrative divisions would be more easily reduced to or- 
der, and a full vote of the loyal blacks could be had, suffi- 
cient, it was believed, with the loyal whites, to carry any 
election. As an alternative to immediate organization of 
the three states, Congress should create three territorial dis- 
tricts and hold them under military control until civil gov- 
ernments could be safely established. 

The memorial bore the signatures of Davis, J. W. 
Flanagan, M. C. Hamilton, Varnell, and Burnett; but the 
last named declared that his name was placed there without 
his consent and presented a spirited memorial of his own, 
protesting against classing the opposing wing of the Repub- 
licans with rebels, insisting that conditions had grown 
better rather than worse since Grant's election, defending 
the new constitution as satisfactory to the loyal people of 
Texas, and praying for the election to be held in July. He 
concurred with his colleagues only in the matter of state 

1 This meant, of course, the adoption of the ab initio doctrine and 
disfranchisement. 



264 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[264 



division, and in that for reasons other than those which 
they urged. 1 It was not anticipated, in fact, when these 
delegates were elected, that they would petition for any- 
thing but state division. 

The moderates presented their " Statement and Me- 
morial " on March 16. It was an eloquent summary of 
political conditions and measures in Texas from the close 
of the war to that time. 2 Particular attention was given to 
the origin of the ab initio doctrine, its rejection by Gov- 
ernor Pease, by the military, by the constitutional conven- 
tion and the Republican state convention. The history 
of the attempt to divide the state, the failure of the division- 
ists to agree upon the lines of division, and the expense it 
would bring upon the people of Texas, who were generally 
poor, were briefly but clearly set forth. The section of the 
constitution granting suffrage to the late rebels was de- 
fended in language both eloquent and generous : 

We are of the opinion that it is not the part either of wisdom 
or justice to perpetuate disabilities in our state constitution. . . . 
Those who have been temporarily clothed with power in the 
lately rebellious states, wisely and for necessary ends, are too 
much heated by the friction of the contest through which they 
are passing, and are under too strong a temptation to punish 
their opponents, and to preserve power to themselves, to be the 
best judges of what a wise and just policy requires to be done 
on such a; subject. . . . We wish to sit down by our hearth- 
stones once more in peace. We do not wish to prolong a con- 
test which, if prolonged, can produce only the bitter fruit of 
settled and implacable hate. 3 

1 For these two memorials, see Austin Republican, March 31, 1869. 

2 It was written by Judge Jas. H. Bell. 

3 This memorial was signed by twenty-four Texas Republicans, 
twelve of whom had been members of the convention. Austin Re- 
publican, March 30, 1869. 



265] THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 265 

It soon became evident that only a few of the most ex- 
treme of the Republican leaders in Congress looked with 
any favor upon the designs of the Davis committee, and 
none openly espoused their cause. General Reynolds, who 
had influence with Grant, was credited with declaring 
" division " a ridiculous proposition ; at any rate, neither 
congressmen nor the Northern press took up the idea read- 
ily. Nor did the ab initio doctrine, soon to receive its 
deathblow at the hands of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, 1 gain many adherents. They were not more suc- 
cessful in the matter of suffrage, for Northern politicians 
had grown weary of carrying the burden of a disfranchised 
South so long after the war had ended. The general dis- 
position was to hurry up reconstruction and get it over 
with. Finding there was small chance of getting Congress 
to interfere in their behalf on these points, the radical lead- 
ers fell back to the question of postponing the election 
until fall, which would give them more time to determine 
upon their future policy. In this there was greater pro- 
mise of success ; for whether their accusation that the moder- 
ates had " sold out to the rebels " found many believers or 
not, there was some uneasiness among Grant's supporters 
as to how the elections in Pennsylvania and other doubtful 
states would go in the early fall, and a desire to hold back 
Texas and Mississippi until these elections were over. 
Meanwhile they interposed successful resistance to the ef- 
forts of their opponents to have Congress remove before 
adjournment the political disabilities of some two hundred 
citizens of Texas, among whom were such prominent union- 
ists as Jas. H. Bell, Thos. H. Stribling, W. E. Jones, and 
G. H. Noonan. 2 After passing an act which left the Presi- 

1 Cf. Texas vs. White, 7 Wall., 700-743- 

2 Austin Republican, April 8, 12, 13, 14, 1869. 



266 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[266 



dent to order elections in Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas, 
at such times as he should see proper, for voting upon the 
constitutions and the officers thereunder, Congress ad- 
journed April 10; but the two delegations lingered with 
Grant and his cabinet, seeking Federal patronage, until 
Grant informed them that the patronage would be divided 
equally between them. It was distributed, however, chiefly 
upon the advice of General Reynolds, who at this time 
seemed to favor the conservatives, and the latter got the 
larger share. 1 On the whole, the contest at Washington 
resulted in favor of the Hamilton Republicans and to the 
discomfiture of the radicals, who returned to Texas dis- 
organized and discouraged. 

One change had been made in Texas with which neither 
party had anything to do, though it must have seemed an 
additional advantage to the conservatives. Grant sent 
General J. J. Reynolds back to the command of Texas, 
transferring Canby to Virginia. No reason was assigned 
except that it was a matter of justice to Reynolds to allow 
him to finish up what he had begun. 2 Canby's rule had 
been vigorous and firm, but just, and he was looked upon 
by the people generally, that is, the whites, with more favor 
than Reynolds, who was regarded as unjust and arbitrary. 
Though the whole administration of the state practically 
centered at his headquarters, and was transacted largely 
through his special orders, Canby was careful to follow the 
state law as far as possible and to interfere but little with 
the peaceful pursuits of the people. His most unpopular 
order was not of his own making. It was the promulga- 
tion of a joint resolution of Congress directing that all per- 
sons holding office under the provisional governments of 

1 Austin Republican, April 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 24, 30, May 7, 1869. 

2 Ibid., March 5, 1869. 



267] 



THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 



267 



Virginia, Texas, and Mississippi be required to take the 
iron-clad oath, failing which their places should be filled by 
persons who could take the oath. This was carrying out to 
its extremity the policy laid down by Griffin in 1867 and 
followed ever since with respect to appointments to office. 
It was easier to apply such a rule now than earlier, when 
the prevalence of grave disorder made necessary the retention 
of many officials in whom the people had confidence; but it 
does not seem unfair to assume that the sole motive was to 
get the offices and their perquisites into the hands of Re- 
publicans. Canby did not remain long enough to complete 
the transfer of offices, and the task was left to Reynolds, 
who assumed command on April 8. 

2. The Formation of Tickets 
Now that it was positively known that the constitution 
would be submitted to the voters and state officers elected, 
interest in the election deepened, though Grant had not in- 
dicated when it would be called. The late convention had 
barely adjourned when considerable discussion arose among 
the Democrats as to what should be their attitude as a party 
toward the new constitution and the offices. At first they 
diverged widely. The Houston Telegraph declared for 
the constitution, as the best that could be expected under 
the conditions of the times, and for Jack Hamilton for 
governor. The State Gazette favored the constitution, but, 
as the party organ, refused to commit itself to any candi- 
date until a Democratic convention should be held and a 
ticket put out. 1 The Telegraph vehemently opposed call- 
ing any convention, putting out any candidates for state 
offices, or organizing in any way, — very sensibly urging 
that if a Democratic ticket were elected it would defeat the 



1 Issues of Feb. 17, March 1, 3, 5 and 10, 1869. 



268 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ 2 68 

readmission of the state as it did in 1866, and that if the 
new officials must be Republicans, the Democrats should 
throw their entire strength to the moderate party and in 
such a way as not to lend countenance to the cry that the 
latter had " sold out " to them. 1 The San Antonio Herald 
sided with the Telegraph; some of the smaller papers de- 
manded a straight Democratic ticket, but practically all 
were for the constitution. At one time Walton, chairman 
of the executive committee, announced that a convention 
would be called, but soon withdrew the announcement, 
fearing that participation in the contest by an organized 
Democracy would result either in a victory for the radi- 
cals or rejection of the constitution by Congress. A ten- 
tative proposition to fuse with the moderate Republicans 
on the state ticket was at once rejected, and abandoning that 
field thereafter the Democrats put forward only county and 
legislative candidates. The State Gazette urged that a 
Democratic legislature was necessary to save the state from 
the ruinous effects of radicalism, since the rest of the gov- 
ernment was already surrendered to the Republicans. 2 

The constitutionalist Republicans were slow to get their 
ticket formed. It was evident from the first that A. J. 
Hamilton was the general choice of their party for gov- 
ernor, but his name was not formally put forward until 
it became evident that the constitution would not be set aside 
by Congress. On March 18, he announced his candidacy 
in a telegram from Washington, and on the next day his 
associates in that city drafted a state ticket with his name 
at the head. The state executive committee was called to 
meet in Austin on April 20. A few of the conservatives 

1 Weekly Telegraph, Feb. 25, March 4, 11, 18 and April 1, 1869. 

2 State Gazette, April 19, 31, June 7, 18, 25, 1869. 



269] THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 269 

held out for Pease, but he promptly declared he would not 
be a candidate. Two questions now confronted this party. 
Should they join forces with the Democrats on a fusion 
ticket? and should they call a state convention for the 
purpose of agreeing upon their ticket? The first, we have 
seen, was decided in the negative; the other was debated at 
great length. The Austin Republican opposed a conven- 
tion, as did most of the leaders, on the ground that there 
was not time; that the people would not respond because 
there was not a big enough contest in sight to interest them ; 
and that a convention would be attended only by aspirants 
for office. It was not a strong argument, but with the 
strong combination of leaders back of it, it was sufficient to 
prevent a convention. The consequence was that some dis- 
satisfaction arose and accusations were made that the 
" Austin ring " was manipulating affairs in its own inter- 
est; considerable difficulty was experienced in getting a 
ticket that all of their own party would agree upon; and, 
more than either of these, it deprived the conservatives 
of that appearance of regularity which such an organization 
would have given them in the struggle against their radical 
brethren for recognition at Washington. 

At first, however, the radicals did not seem dangerous. 
They had returned from Washington defeated in practically 
every issue they had raised. Ab initio was dead, division 
was dead, and there was no hope for disfranchisement. 
Greeley had informed them, with respect to the last, that it 
was time for the southern Republicans to cease " hanging 
around the neck of the North ", that they must take care 
of themselves, and after the Fifteenth Amendment secured 
the suffrage to the negroes it would be " Root hog, or die !" 1 



1 Quoted from New York Tribune by State Gazette, June 9, 1869. 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ 2 yo 



In all of Texas at this time there was not a single paper of 
importance that openly espoused their cause. 1 To con- 
tinue the fight against the adoption of the constitution was 
already hopeless, and there was before them a choice of three 
things: to go down in defeat against the constitution; to 
give up the contest and disintegrate as a party; or to repu- 
diate their former declarations, accept the constitution and 
either become reconciled to the other faction, or go into the 
field against it upon a similar platform. The first and 
second being out of the question, a hint was feelingly thrown 
out to the Hamilton party that reconciliation could be had 
by placing some of the radicals upon the ticket. 2 The 
former, however, were confident of success and distrustful 
of their opponents and refused to displace any of their 
candidates. In the meanwhile, Morgan Hamilton, who 
was no party to the reconciliation idea, issued a call for a 
radical Republican convention to meet at Galveston on 
May 10. It was poorly attended, only about twenty dele- 
gates with some twenty-five alternates and proxies from a 
score of counties being present — and many appear to have 
been self-appointed. None of the radical leaders were pres- 
ent except Ruby; and nothing was done except to attack 
General Reynolds for telling Grant that there were not 
enough Union men in Texas, under the operation of the 
iron-clad oath, to fill the offices, and to refer certain resolu- 
tions to another convention which J. G. Tracy, editor of 

1 The San Antonio Express had recently passed under the editorial 
control of E. M. Wheelock, Superintendent of Education, and a close 
friend of Pease. The Houston Union and Flake's Bulletin were as yet 
neutral Republican. 

2 E. M. Wheelock to Governor Pease, June n, 1869, MS. in Exec. 
Corres. The Houston Union, now gravitating to Davis, proposed him 
for lieutenant-governor. See State Gazette, May 12. See also letter 
of Jas. McKean to J. L. Haynes in Austin Republican, June 12, 1869. 



271] THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 2 J1 

the Houston Union, had called to meet in Houston on 
June 7. 1 

The outlook was not auspicious, for the abortive Galves- 
ton affair had weakened their position and little could be 
hoped of another such attempt. But it seems that in the 
latter part of May the radical leaders began to receive en- 
couragement from northern radicals, such as Boutwell and 
Sumner, who stood close to national headquarters, and who 
were already helping them to secure the postponement of 
the election. Whatever the understanding, the Davis party 
were made to see that in opposing reconstruction they were 
holding to an impossible position, and cutting themselves 
off from Northern help; and they came the more easily to 
the last alternative — to effect an independent organization 
on a liberal platform. 2 

When, therefore, the Houston convention assembled, con- 
sisting of about thirty-five delegates and forty alternates 
from seventeen counties, their plans were taking form. The 
platform adopted involved a complete reversal of policy and 
principles. It made no reference to state division; it said 
not a word of ab initio principles. It accepted and promised 
to sustain the reconstruction acts of Congress, which had 
so often been declared a failure, and the constitution, which 
heretofore had been so impossible, was now declared " to 
propose the main object of constitutional government, viz., 
the equal civil and political rights of all persons under the 
law. This convention therefore recommends the ratification 
of the same." The only issue raised against their oppo- 
nents, the conservatives, was embodied in a warning to " the 

1 Proceedings of the Galveston convention in Flake's Daily Bulletin, 
May 11 and 12, 1869. 

2 See Houston Union, June 1, 1869; quoted in Austin Republican, 
June 4, 1869. 



272 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [272 

loyal people of Texas that opposition to the organization of 
the Republican party is the result of an insidious design of 
the enemy purposing the practical surrender of the state 
to the disloyal." 1 There was, in fact, no essential differ- 
ence between this platform and that of the state convention 
of August 12, 1868, upon which the conservatives stood. 
E. J. Davis was nominated for governor and J. W. Flana- 
gan for lieutenant-governor. The ticket, however, was 
not completed, and that task was left in the care of the 
chairman of the new state executive committee. To this 
position had been called J. G. Tracy, president of the con- 
vention, a most thorough-going spoilsman and one destined 
to play a large part in the history of the radical adminis- 
tration. Less than a year before he had been the publisher 
of the Houston Telegraph, at that time one of the most vio- 
lent Democratic sheets in the state; but anxious only for 
power, place, and profits, he was ready to act with any 
political party that promised them. He had been support- 
ing Hamilton in a neutral sort of way, and his sudden ad- 
hesion to Davis, who was desperately in need of an organ, 
strengthens the presumption that some understanding had 
been effected between the latter and the radicals of the 
North. 

There was one member of the party, however, who was 
not prepared for so complete a face-about of principles, and 
that was no less a person than the dominating, splenetic, 
but able Morgan Hamilton, whom one of his opponents 
called " the spinal-column of the Davis party." He had 
not attended the convention and he now refused to act on 
its new executive committee. In a long letter to Tracy he 
reviewed the history of the faction to which he belonged 
and the principles which had called it into existence, and 
then went on to say: 

1 The platform in full is given in the Ausiin Republican, June 14, 1869. 



THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 



273 



The platform adopted is a clean surrender of all the issues 
which separated the two sections of the Republican party. 
It sinks out of sight and out of hearing everything upon which 
our appeal to Congress was made and upon which we can go 
before the country. ... I have no stomach for further work in 
the cause. ... I have been so generally characterized by " all 
liberal minded men," i. e. conservatives, as impracticable, 
illiberal, fanatical, vindictive, blood-thirsty, and by many other 
choice epithets distinguishing the savage, that I can not well 
afford to have superadded those of knave or fool. 1 

3. The Canvass — The Radicals Endorsed by Grant 

All parties now hurried to complete their legislative and 
Congressional tickets, and to this end conventions were held 
in various districts, though in some the ticket was simply 
agreed upon without a convention. The canvass grew more 
spirited. The only issues, aside from the bitter personali- 
ties that characterized the time, have already been indi- 
cated. The radicals still insisted that the conservatives 
had " sold out to the rebels ", or Democrats, and that the 
loyal people would suffer in the sale : the conservatives held 
up and derided the recent conversion of the radicals, de- 
claring their inconsistency proved a lack of political prin- 
ciple, and stigmatized them as a negro-supremacy and car- 
pet-bagger party. 2 One other question there was which 
was fought out elsewhere, the date of the election. The 
Davis party had everything to gain by delay, the Hamilton 
nothing to gain. The former continued to represent at 

1 Tracy for a time refused to publish this letter, though specifically 
requested to by its author, and not until Hamilton threatened to send 
out copies to other papers did he print it at all. It is given in full in 
the Austin Republican, July 6, 1869. Later on, Morgan Hamilton went 
back into the fold of the Davis faction. 

2 On this, see Austin Republican, Flake's Bulletin, Houston Union, 
San Antonio Express, passim. 



274 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [274 

Washington that political intolerance and assassination of 
union men, i. e. radicals, were terribly prevalent in Texas 
and that as yet they would not be allowed a free vote; the 
latter insisted that Texas had grown very peaceful and that 
there was no reason whatever for longer delay. 1 

It must have been about this time that another, and, for 
obvious reasons, a powerful factor entered the struggle in 
the form of an alliance between the Davis party and Gen- 
eral Reynolds, who had been the subject of their bitter at- 
tacks and complaints since the origin of the ab initio con- 
troversy in the fall of 1867. Whether Reynolds had secret 
ambitious designs, when he induced President Grant, his 
old friend and West Point classmate, to send him back to 
Texas, can not be determined, but he was not long in ac- 
quiring an itch for political office. He had always pro- 
fessed sympathy with the moderate and liberal faction, and 
now he approached J. L. Haynes, chairman of their exe- 
cutive committee, intimated a desire to be elected United 
States senator from Texas, and suggested that his influ- 
ence with Grant would insure a speedy reconstruction of 
the state, and, therefore, the triumph of Hamilton. Haynes 
was willing to accept the arrangement, but Reynolds tried 
to exact a pledge from Hamilton himself, who not only re- 
fused but denounced the bargain publicly. Rebuffed and 
humiliated, Reynolds secretly allied with Davis, and ap- 
parently on the same terms, for he was a candidate for the 
United States senate before the legislature the next winter. 2 

1 It is very amusing to note the conservative Republicans employing 
identically the same arguments on this point that the Democratic- 
Conservatives, then their opponents, had used three years before. A 
different ox was being gored now. 

2 Much information on this point was contributed by Mrs. W. W. 
Mills, a daughter of A. J. Hamilton. Hamilton himself refers to it in 
his Memorial to Congress of February, 1870, concerning frauds in the 
recent election. 



275] THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 275 

Thus began a career of duplicity and fraud that was to 
cover with reproach a hitherto honorable reputation. Soon 
afterwards, it appears, he wrote Grant advising a post- 
ponement of the election which Hamilton's supporters still 
hoped would be held in August or, at latest, September. 

Both parties were manceuvering for the support of the 
President, but the radicals were gradually getting the ad- 
vantage. In the first place their organization had the ap- 
pearance of regularity, because they had held the only state 
convention that called itself Republican since the year be- 
fore, and they had the sympathy of men like Butler, Bout- 
well, Sumner, and Creswell, and by no means least in influ- 
ence, Reynolds. They had a number of active agents in 
Washington who were endeavoring to secure the official re- 
cognition of their organization, and in this they finally 
succeeded. 1 On July 7, Governor Wm. Claflin of Massa- 
chusetts, 'chairman of the national Republican executive 
committee, officially directed that the Davis committee be 
recognized as the regular one in Texas. This petition be- 
ing sustained by several of the members of his cabinet, 
Grant, who had hitherto refused to take sides, now an- 
nounced to the radical leaders that, it having been decided 
which was the Republican party in Texas, he was " ready 
to make any changes necessary to the success of recon- 
struction in that state." 2 The conservatives seem to have 
been fighting in the dark. Pease, bearing a letter of com- 
mendation from Reynolds, who was not yet suspected of 
duplicity, went to Washington early in July to prevent the 

1 Among those agents were W. B. Moore, late of the S. A. Express, 
Judge C. B. Sabin and even L. D. Evans, a Democrat. 

2 The circumstances attending this recognition, especially his own 
part in it, are told by W. B. Moore in a printed circular written 
May 20, 1871. 



276 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[276 



postponement of the election. He could do nothing. On 
July 15, President Grant issued a proclamation fixing the 
election for November 30. 1 

Meanwhile several things occurred to alarm the Hamilton 
party. The stand taken by the President in the contest in 
Mississippi, where he openly espoused the cause of the radi- 
cals against his own brother-in-law, was an uncomforting 
precedent. 2 Then rumors flew about that several of the 
friends of Hamilton holding federal appointments were to 
be displaced by Davis men. The first to fall was W. W. 
Mills, collector of customs at El Paso and Hamilton's son- 
in-law, who was replaced by D. C. Marsh, a carpet-bagger 
from Michigan and a supporter of Davis. The Davis or- 
gans were soon prophesying the removal of others, and in 
September the changes began. The post offices at import- 
ant places were given to prominent Davis men ; revenue and 
customs officers, United States marshals and other federal 
appointees who were known to be Hamilton's supporters, 
were ousted. 3 This interference by Grant's cabinet was 
resented bitterly by the conservative Republican press in 
Texas, but was denounced as well by such Northern papers 
as the New York Tribune as " little short of idiotic," be- 
cause calculated to endanger the ratification of the Fifteenth 
Amendment by alienating many of the Hamilton party. 4 
These removals were as yet confined to federal offices. But 

1 Ann. Cyclop., 1869, p. 674. 

2 Garner, Reconstruction in Mississippi, 241. 

8 J. G. Tracy was made postmaster at (Houston, Swante Palm at 
Austin. Among other changes, J. H. Haynes was replaced as collec- 
tor of customs for the Galveston district by Nathan Patten; A. H. 
Longley, assessor of internal revenue, by W. B. Moore. See Austin 
Republican, June 15, Sept. 27, 28, 30, 1869. 

* Quoted in Austin Republican, Oct. 8, 1869. See also issues of Sept. 
23 and 30. 



277] 



THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 



277 



following the example of the cabinet, Reynolds, when ill- 
feeling was aroused by the news of his alliance with Davis, 
soon began the decapitation of state officers. 

The General's change of heart seems to have remained 
generally unsuspected by his late Hamiltonian friends until 
the telegraphic despatches of September 25 gave out part 
of his letter, " Personal No. 2," of September 4, to the 
President. Within two weeks the whole text of that re- 
markable letter was in their hands. It charged the failure 
of reconciliation between the factions wholly upon the 
Hamilton party, which had held aloof from any organiza- 
tion; and declared the only organized Republican party in 
the state was that headed by E. J. Davis ; and that the rea- 
son for this action of the Hamilton faction was to be found 
in Democratic support of Hamilton for governor. Further- 
more, the radical wing acted out their professions of ad- 
herence to the reconstruction laws by presenting for office 
men qualified under those laws; while the conservatives 
nominated men who could not qualify but were acceptable 
to the Democrats. 1 

The circumstances all considered, I am constrained to believe 
that the coalition which has been charged as existing between 
the Conservative, or A. J. Hamilton Republicans, and the 
Democrats (generally ex-rebels) does exist. . . . The success 
of the A. J. Hamilton faction, as it will be produced by Demo- 
cratic votes, will be the defeat of Republicanism in Texas, and 
will put the state in the hands of the very men who, during 
the entire period of the rebellion, exerted every nerve to 

1 Reynolds cited as examples, Stribling of San Antonio, candidate for 
Congress, and McFarland of Austin, candidate for state senator. Yet 
Degener, the Davis candidate against Stribling, could not take the test- 
oath, and Whitmore, Davis candidate for Congress in North Texas, 
was disqualified by the Reconstruction Acts. There were quite as many 
ex-Confederates, though Union men, on the Davis ticket as on the other. 



278 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[278 



destroy the Union, and who have uniformly opposed the re- 
construction laws with a persistency worthy of a better cause. 1 

The publication of this letter aroused a storm of angry 
protest from the Hamilton party. As soon as its substance 
had been made public, Governor Pease addressed an indig- 
nant but courteous letter to Reynolds tendering his resigna- 
tion. The General's opinions, he said, were not warranted 
by the course of the two parties; his endorsement of Davis 
and the efforts of the national administration to assist in 
the election of that factious element left no alternative. 2 
Pease now plunged into the campaign for Hamilton. It 
was rumored that Davis or Morgan Hamilton would be 
appointed to succeed him, but it was not done. Indeed 
there was now little need for a governor, for the military 
commander had gradually absorbed all his important 
functions. 

Although they saw the cards stacked against them, the 
conservatives redoubled their efforts. Here and there 
changes were made in the ticket, several candidates resign- 
ing in order to concentrate upon one man. Stribling, can- 
didate for Congress from the 4th or western district, who 
ran some risk of disqualification, gave way to J. L. Haynes, 
against whom nothing damaging could be urged. Speak- 
ers were sent out to all parts of the state. Nor were their 
opponents idle. Though unable to command a like array of 
able speaking talent — for Pease was right in saying that 
eight-tenths of the educated Republicans were with Hamil- 
ton, — the radicals could appeal with peculiar force to the 

1 The full text of this letter may be found in Ann. Cyclop., 1869, pp. 
674-5; in Austin Republican, Oct. 8, 1869; and in appendix to Hamil- 
ton's Memorial, of Feb. 6, 1870. 

2 Austin Republican, Oct. 2, 1869. Executive Records, Register Book, 
no. 283, pp. 427-8. 



279] THE CAMPAI & N AND ELECTION OF 1869 279 

negroes through the Loyal Union League of which Ruby 
was president. In July, this officer had levied a special 
tax of twenty-five cents upon each member of the organiza- 
tion for campaign purposes. 1 It was represented to them 
that Hamilton and his friends had " sold out to the rebels " 
and intended to disfranchise the blacks, and as proof of this 
was cited the administration's endorsement of Davis. It was 
soon to be seen that the majority of the negroes were safe 
for the radical ticket. As they so overwhelmingly out- 
numbered the whites in the Republican party, it was evident 
that to win, Hamilton must secure a large number of 
Democratic votes. So great was the repugnance of the 
average Democrat to radical rule, that, as has been seen, 
most of them were willing to support him. However, many 
wavered and some extremists there were who would not 
vote for a Republican under any circumstances. These 
were encouraged by the radicals to take an independent 
stand, since such a course would weaken Hamilton. In- 
deed it is hard to acquit some of these extreme Democrats 
of having willingly played into the hands of the radicals. 
On September 29, a small group of Democratic editors as- 
sembled at Brenham and nominated Hamilton Stuart, edi- 
tor of the Galveston Civilian, a man of the highest personal 
character, for governor, with a full ticket of state officers. 
The movement was engineered by a group of self-styled 
" careful thinkers ", who apparently had no hope whatever 
of electing Stuart, but expected to pull over enough waver- 
ing Democrats from Hamilton to defeat him. In this they 
were planning not for the present, but for the future. 
The election of the proscriptive radicals, controlled by 
carpet-baggers and negro leaders, would destroy the future 



1 The order is printed in Austin Republican, August 28, 1869. 



280 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



chances of the Republican party in Texas, while a moder- 
ate administration might give it increased strength and 
respectability. Their action did not move many Democrats 
but it placed another obstacle in the way of the Hamilton 
party. 1 

On October i, General Reynolds issued his order for 
revising the registration lists and for holding the general 
election, which was to commence November 30 and close 
December 3. The registration was to begin November 
16 and run for ten days, and the registrars were given the 
same powers they held under former orders. The provis- 
ions relating to the method of holding the election will be 
noted further on. 2 

No objection was to be found to the directions for regis- 
tration, but objection was very speedily made to the regis- 
trars appointed. In most counties, especially in the popu- 
lous and important ones, Davis men alone were selected, 
though in a good many instances military officers were 
placed at the head. It was seen at once that this was 
giving the radicals an unfair advantage. Before Reynolds's 
order was issued, Jas. P. Newcomb, again editor of the 
San Antonio Express, had declared it necessary for the 
commander to appoint only radical Republicans, and no 
others, to these places, in order that " a proper registration " 
could be had; they should be able to reject applicants, as 
did those appointed by General Griffin, " even when they 
were technically entitled to register, if they were known to 

1 There was thought at the time to be some significance in the fact 
that both E. J. Davis and J. G. Tracy were in Brenham at the time 
Hamilton Stuart was nominated. Tracy was hobnobbing with the 
Democratic editors. 

2 General Orders, no. 174, in Ann. Cyclop., 1869, pp. 676-7; and in 
Austin Republican, Oct. 4, 1869. 



28 1 ] THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 28 1 

be opposed to the government." 1 Since such men as 
Newcomb insisted that all who were not radicals were re- 
bels and therefore " opposed to the government," this could 
mean but one thing; and it was given even a more sinister 
aspect when Reynolds afterwards, in the face of this bra- 
zen declaration, appointed this same Newcomb the head of 
a radical board of registrars for Bexar County. 

When the registration began complaints were plentiful. 
For convenience, the old registration lists were accepted 
and only new names added. The most frequent complaint 
was that all applicants who testified that they had been re- 
fused before, were rejected at once, no matter what the 
trouble had been. Many claimed they were refused for no 
other reason than that they were Hamilton men. In Bexar 
County, in addition to the usual complaints of unfair rejec- 
tion, it was later shown that about one hundred names were 
struck off illegally after registration had closed. Undoubt- 
edly many of those who complained were legally ineligible, 
and there would have been dissatisfaction and accusations in 
any case; but the mere fact that in a close, exciting cam- 
paign, the boards were in the majority of cases drawn 
wholly from one side, often composed of persons of equiv- 
ocal character, and given sole authority to appoint chal- 
lengers, — in fact, that complete power over the registration 
of the voters was given to one of the factions, is enough of 
itself to justify grave suspicion of both actual and premedi- 
tated fraud. 

During the later stages of the campaign Reynolds began 
a general removal of Hamilton's friends from the higher 
state offices. In October W. R. Fayle, judge of the crim- 
inal court of Harris and Galveston counties, was removed 

1 The whole article is quoted in Tri-Weekly State Gazette, Sept. 6, 
1869. 



282 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[282 



on the ground that he had caused a white jury to be re- 
turned for the trial of J. G. Tracy, Davis's campaign man- 
ager, indicted for homicide, — though it had not been cus- 
tomary in that district to return mixed juries. A former 
jury had been packed for acquittal, according to the state- 
ment of Tracy's friend, the prosecuting attorney, and the 
judge's sole object seems to have been to get an impartial 
jury. Tracy went to see Reynolds, who issued the order 
of removal and appointed a new judge, Dodge, a personal 
and political friend of Tracy. It was charged by Judge 
Fayle himself that the sole motive for his removal was to 
prevent harm to the Davis cause. 1 D. J. Baldwin was sus- 
pended from the office of district attorney for no other 
apparent reason than that he was a friend of Hamilton. 2 
Joseph Wadsworth was removed from a similar position for 
the same reason. C. Caldwell was removed from the su- 
preme court for no other cause than being one of the ag- 
gressive Hamilton leaders ; and his colleague, the venerable 
A. H. Latimer, candidate for lieutenant-governor with 
Hamilton, was virtually thrust off and treated in a most 
insolent manner. 3 To his place was appointed Moses B. 
Walker, an ex-colonel in the United States Army. 4 

1 Flake's Bulletin, quoted in Austin Republican, Nov. 2, 1869; Ann. 
Cyclop., 1869, p. 676. 

2 He had been imprisoned during the war as a Union man ; his suc- 
cessor was an ex-Confederate officer. Ann, Cyclop., 1869, p. 676; 
Houston Union, Nov. 20, 1869. 

3 He had offered his resignation, to take effect Dec. 30; Reynolds 
informed him it would take effect Nov. 30. 'Resenting the affront, he 
asked that his resignation take place at once. The court was in session 
and Reynolds refused and ordered him not to leave town. Austin 
Republican, Nov. 2, 5, 11, 1869. 

4 Federal army officers were appointed to several judgeships and dis- 
trict-attorneyships. One was made mayor of Brenham. 



283] THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 283 

4. The Election 

On Tuesday, November 30, the election began, with the 
country in a state of suppressed excitement. In counties 
where there was any reason to apprehend disturbances, 
Reynolds had stationed detachments of soldiers to guard 
the polls. The polling places were in the county seats and 
the registry boards were the officers of election. The 
methods employed in the registration had not increased the 
confidence of the people in a fair election, and it was found 
that the provisions of Reynolds's recent order were far 
from assuring it. The vote was by ballot; but it was or- 
dered that no mark should be placed upon the ballot by the 
registrars, except to designate " colored " voters. The 
customary precaution of numbering the ballot so as to make 
it correspond to the voter's number on the registry list, in 
order to detect a fraudulent change of ballot, was omitted. 
This left the ballot box completely at the mercy of the re- 
gistrars. It was also ordered that if any disturbance arose 
the polls should be closed by the board and not re-opened 
until ordered by the military commander. 

In general the election passed off more quietly than had 
been anticipated. The returns came in very slowly, but it 
soon became evident that the vote for Hamilton would 
prove to be unexpectedly small. A large proportion of 
the whites had not voted, either because they would not 
support any Republican candidate, or else because they 
feared, as the Davis party insisted, that Hamilton's election 
would not be acceptable to the administration and would 
therefore defeat the reconstruction of the state. But little 
more than half of the registered whites went to the polls at 
all, while a large percentage of the negroes voted. 1 Since 

1 The revised registration lists showed: whites, 78,648; colored, 56,- 
005 ; total, 135,553- 



284 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [284 

most of these last were controlled for Davis by means of the 
League the race for governor was rendered very close. 
Both sides claimed victory, but reports obtained from mili- 
tary headquarters gave Davis a majority which rose and 
fell until it settled to about 800. 

In the meantime came a deluge of accusations of fraud 
from various parts of the state. Some of these pertained 
to registration and have already been noticed. In Navarro 
County, claimed for Hamilton, with a voting population of 
over one thousand, no election was held at all, because the 
chairman of the board, a non-resident, had taken away the 
list of registered voters and never returned. 1 In Milam, 
also said to be a Hamilton county, the election was stopped 
on the morning of the second day on pretext of disturb- 
ance near the polls, and no returns were made at all. The 
ballot-box of Hill County was taken into an adjoining 
county and counted by one member of the board alone, who 
returned a majority of 149 for Davis. Returns from El 
Paso gave Davis 339 and Hamilton 122, though 277 voters 
afterwards made affidavit that they had voted for the latter. 
An examination of the ballots by the local district com- 
mander showed that they had been tampered with, and he 
advised General Reynolds that an investigation should be 
had. 2 It was charged and admitted that in a number of 
counties the officers of election failed altogether to swear to 
the correctness of the returns. The conservatives were 
clamorous for Reynolds to make an investigation into these 
fraud charges and to order a special election in Milam and 
Navarro, as he had indicated he would do. If this should 
be done they were confident of success. But Reynolds re- 

1 He was a son of J. H. Lippard, a candidate for the state senate 
from that district, and it was said that Navarro was not a Lippard 
stronghold. 

'Mills, Forty Years in El Paso; Austin Republican, Dec. 2, 11, 21, 22, 
23, 1869; Jan. 11, 21, 24, 1870; Hamilton's Memorial. 



285] THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 285 

fused to do anything. 1 The returns were accepted as sent 
in; and the question as to Milam and Navarro was dallied 
with awhile and then in some form referred to the Presi- 
dent. The President's action may be guessed at from the 
fact that the special election was never ordered. 2 A protest 
of the conservative leaders was sent to Grant, but availed 
nothing. 

On January 8, General Reynolds issued the following : 

Special Orders, No. 6, Austin, Texas, Jan. 8, 1870. 

The following appointments to civil office are hereby made, 
the persons appointed having been elected to the positions 
designated : 

Edmund J. Davis to be Governor. 

J. W. Flanagan to be Lieutenant Governor. 

A. Bledsoe to be Comptroller. 

G. W. Honey to be Treasurer. 

Jacob Keuchler to be Commissioner of General Land Office. 

The present incumbents will continue to discharge the duties 
of their respective offices until their successors appear in per- 
son and duly qualify. 3 

1 Hamilton and his friends always believed that he had been de- 
liberately and fraudulently counted out by Reynolds. Just before the 
election one of Reynolds's staff officers, Colonel Hunt, a warm per- 
sonal friend of Hamilton, warned him that there was a move on foot 
at headquarters to make the election of Davis sure, " if he had to be 
counted in." The course openly pursued by Reynolds before, during 
and after the election, seemed to justify the warning and established 
the belief in his guilt 

2 During this time the Hamilton party seemed to be entirely in the 
dark as to Reynolds's intentions, while the leaders of the other party 
were in frequent consultation with the General. For running comment 
of a partisan, but one on the ground and generally reliable, see files of 
Austin Republican for this time. 

3 The candidates on the Hamilton ticket had been : 
A. J. Hamilton for governor. 

A. H. Latimer for lieutenant governor. 
A. T. Monroe for comptroller. 
Jas. W. Thomas for treasurer. 

Joseph Spence for commissioner general land office. 



286 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[286 



Five days later another order was issued making appropria- 
tions for the salaries of the state officials for the year 1870 
as fixed by the new constitution. On January 11, General 
Orders no. 5 again gave out the results of the election 
without stating the vote for any of the candidates. 1 In ad- 
dition to the Davis ticket, already named, the four Con- 
gressmen-elect were declared to be G. W. Whitmore, J. C. 
Conner, W. T. Clark and E. Degener from the 1st, 2nd, 
3rd and 4th districts respectively. 2 The vote for the con- 
stitution was 72,466 to 4,928 against it. It was learned at 
headquarters that the official returns for governor were : 

Davis 39>9°i 

Hamilton 39,092 

Stuart (Dem.) 380 

Davis arrived at Austin about a week after his appointment 
and took up his duties as " provisional governor." He 
would not become actual governor until Congress should 
accept the constitution and readmit the state. Jas. P. New- 
comb became his secretary of state. J. G. Tracy hurried to 
Austin for the purpose of establishing a paper there as the 
administration organ, purchased the State Gazette which 
he renamed the State Journal, and installed Newcomb as its 
editor. 3 Hamilton's friends called a consultation at Austin 

1 Copy in Exec. Corres. 

2 Conner was a Democratic carpet-bagger who had been stationed in 
that district for some two or three years as a captain in the U. S. 
army. His home was in Indiana. 

3 The record of this pair of spoilsmen and their business associates 
is worth noting. Tracy, ex-Confederate, ex-Democrat, and radical of 
eighteen months' standing, was postmaster at Houston, publisher and 
editor of the Houston Union, enjoying with the S. A. Express the ex- 
clusive patronage of the U. S. Government in Texas, chairman of the 
Republican executive committee, and was soon to be public printer. 
His partner in the Union, Quick, with identical war and political re- 



287] THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1869 



287 



for February 7, for the purpose of devising measures for 
bringing the election frauds to the attention of Congress, 
but the evident hopelessness of such a contest and the dis- 
inclination of many of the party leaders to carry the fight 
further led to the abandonment of the program. 1 

cord, was postmaster at Brownsville. Newcomb had been thriftier. 
He was editor of the S. A. Express, alderman of San Antonio, notary- 
public, assistant assessor of internal revenue, secretary of state, and 
editor of the State Journal. For business purposes the new combina- 
tion was nearly ideal and drew from the Republican the remark that 
" with Tracy to make out the bills, and Newcomb as secretary of state 
to approve them, these gentlemen ought to do a right driving busi- 
ness." iSiemering, part owner of the Express and the State Journal, 
had been a lieutenant in Duff's Partisan Rangers, that terror to Union 
men in west Texas during the war. 

1 It was in anticipation of this contest that Hamilton prepared his 
Memorial, an excellent summary, from the point of view of the con- 
servative Republicans, of the election and of General Reynolds's rela- 
tions thereto. 



CHAPTER XI 



The Final Act of Reconstruction 

General Orders no. 5, of January 11, had contained 
the list of legislators-elect, and directed them to assemble 
at Austin on February 8, as prescribed by the Act of Con- 
gress of April 10, 1869. By General Orders no. 21, Febru- 
ary 5, directions were given for the organization of the two 
houses. A stringent oath, based upon but amplifying the 
disqualifying clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was 
prescribed, and the seat of any member failing to take it was 
declared vacant. Reynolds explained that the oath was re- 
quired by the act of April 10, 1869, but in fact it copied 
the one passed in December for the second reconstruction 
of Georgia, and the commander had no authority whatever 
for exacting it in Texas. 1 By the same order a temporary 
speaker of the house was appointed, and all cases of con- 
tested seats were to be referred to military headquarters. 
The reason assigned for this close surveillance of the legis- 
lature was that any organization of the state government, 
prior to the ratification of the constitution by Congress, 
could only be provisional, and he must be responsible for its 
acts. The houses were ordered to transact no business un- 
til all members had taken the required oath, but to adjourn 
from day to day. Business was delayed in this way for 
three days, but those who hesitated at last came forward, 
convinced that if not debarred by the Fourteenth Amend- 

1 See Fleming, Doc. Hist, of Reconstruction, 488-491. Also Flake's 
Bulletin, Feb. 11 and Austin Republican, Feb. 8, 1870. 

288 [288 



289] THE FINAL ACT OF RECONSTRUCTION 289 

ment they were not debarred by this. The first appointeee 
of Reynolds having declined, J. P. Butler was designated 
speaker. 1 On February 10, Ira H. Evans, of Corpus 
Christi, an ex-officer of the United States Army, a towns- 
man and close personal friend of Governor Davis, was 
elected permanent speaker. On the same day General Rey- 
nolds informed the two houses that certain cases of con- 
tested seats, not arising under the reconstruction laws, 
should be acted upon by the bodies concerned. Of these, 
one was in the senate and eight were in the house. The 
others, about ten. were reserved for the decision of a mili- 
tary board. In each house the radicals had a slight ma- 
jority over both Democrats and conservative Republicans, 
and therefore controlled the committees on elections.* 
These made short work of the contests; the radical con- 
testants were seated in nearly every instance. 3 Several of 
those who lost their seats were leading Hamilton Republi- 
cans, as A. J. Evans in the senate and M. L. Armstrong in 
the house. Practically all business pertaining to the execu- 
tive was transacted by the military commander, as Davis 
consistently regarded his own powers as provisional gov- 
ernor too limited to justify any action of his own, even to 
sending messages to the two houses. 

1 Butler was the man who had spoken so bitterly and insultingly of 
General Reynolds in the Galveston convention, May 10, 1869. He was 
a carpet-bagger. 

2 In the Senate, radicals 16, conservatives 3, Democrats 11; in the 
House, radicals about 46, conservatives 8, Democrats about 36. 

3 One case that seems particularly flagrant was the unseating of 
Nelson Plato (Dem.) of the Brownsville district. He was not served 
with notice of a contest until the legislature convened; but was called 
before the committee, given no time in which to collect evidence, and 
immediately deprived of his seat by jamming through the majority 
report which threw out the vote of Cameron County. 



290 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[290 



There were only two matters in particular which the legis- 
lature was required to attend to at this provisional session : 
to ratify the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the 
Constitution of the United States, and to elect United States 
senators. The amendments were submitted on February 
11, and three days later were overwhelmingly adopted, 
practically without opposition. The election of the sena- 
tors was not so easily disposed of. Rumor had been busy 
with the names of a number of candidates, of whom the 
most prominent were General J. J. Reynolds, Governor 
Davis, Morgan Hamilton, J. W. Flanagan, L. D. Evans, 
and J. P. Butler. Unexpectedly to himself, perhaps, vio- 
lent opposition developed against Reynolds. He was bit- 
terly attacked by the press for becoming a candidate be- 
fore a body he had helped so much to constitute through 
manipulation of the voting, whose election he had declared 
without making returns, whose organization he had super- 
vised and whose contested seats he himself had decided. 1 
It was plain to see, also, that some of his late allies had no 
desire to elevate him at the expense of themselves, and that 
there was a strong undercurrent of feeling against him 
at Washington. Just before the radicals went to caucus 
for deciding upon their candidates, he withdrew his name. 
Davis had pledged himself to retain the governorship. 
This left M. C. Hamilton and the lieutenant-governor the 
most prominent candidates of the majority party. In the 
caucus which settled the choice there were a few who bitterly 
opposed Hamilton, because of his letter on the Houston 
convention. On February 22, Hamilton and J. W. Flana- 
gan were elected by decisive majorities, the former for the 
short term to expire March 4, 1871, and also for the suc- 

1 Flake's Bulletin, Feb. 11; Houston Telegraph, Feb. 14; Austin Re- 
publican, Feb. 8 and 16, 1870. 



291] THE FINAL ACT OF RECONSTRUCTION 2 gi 

ceeding term to 1877, and the latter for the term ending 
in March, 1875. The Democrats gave their votes to Gen- 
eral Horace Boughton. 

On February 24, after adopting resolutions compliment- 
ary to General Reynolds, the legislature adjourned, to be 
called by Governor Davis in regular session after the re- 
admission of Texas to representation in Congress. 1 

Early in March Benjamin F. JButler reported a bill from 
the Reconstruction Committee for the admission of the 
Texas senators and representatives to Congress. It went 
through with no opposition and almost without debate. 
Certain conditions, however, were provided : one, that each 
member of the state legislature should within thirty days 
take the oath implied by the third section of the Four- 
teenth Amendment or vacate his seat ; another, that the con- 
stitution of Texas should never be so amended or changed 
as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United 
States of the right to vote as recognized by the constitution 
adopted, except as punishment for crime; a third, that it 
should never be lawful for the said state to deprive any 
citizen of the United States, on account of race, color, 
or previous condition of servitude, of the right to hold office 
under the constitution and laws of the state, or upon any 
such ground to require of him any other qualifications for 
office than such as were required of all other citizens; and 
finally, that the constitution of Texas should never " be 
so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of 
citizens ... of the school rights and privileges " secured 
by this constitution. The act was at once approved by 
President Grant, March 30, 1870. 

Immediately the senators and representatives from Texas ' 



1 One other thing it was thoughtful enough to do. Tracy was 
elected state printer. 



292 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[292 



were sworn in. 1 As soon as the news reached Texas, E. J. 
Davis dropped the qualifying term " provisional " from 
his official title. The final act of reconstruction was per- 
formed on April 16, when General Reynolds issued a gen- 
eral order or proclamation remitting all civil authority in 
the state " to the officers elected by the people." 

Legally, the reconstruction of Texas was now complete. 
After nine years, tumultuous with political and social re- 
volution, she was back again in the Union with her sister 
states, — not on terms of perfect equality it is true, 2 but 
unmanacled, at any rate, and free to work out the new 
problems that confronted her. The first of these was to en- 
dure as best she could the rule of a minority, the most 
ignorant and incapable of her population under the domin- 
ation of reckless leaders, until time should overthrow it. 
Reconstruction had left the pyramid upon its apex ; it must 
be placed upon its base again. 

1 There was some controversy over the admission of J. C. Conner 
(Dem.), representative from the second district; but there was no 
doubt of his majority in the election, and he was finally admitted to 
his seat. 

2 Dunning, Essays, 351. 



EPILOGUE 



CHAPTER XII 



Radical Rule and its Overthrow 

I. Policies and Legislation 

Partly through a natural feeling of relief at the restora- 
tion of civil government, and partly through the promises 
of Davis in the recent campaign that his policy would be 
moderate, progressive, and for the enforcement of law and 
order, the new administration was at first greeted with 
general expressions of good-will. Even the Austin Repub- 
lican announced that the friends of A. J. Hamilton would 
thenceforth recognize and support the organization of which 
Governor Davis was the leader. However, the true spirit 
of the governor's " progressive " plans was not revealed 
until after the legislature met in called session on April 
26th. 

In his message to that body the governor complained 
of the continuance of lawlessness in many parts of the state 
and recommended that an act be passed for the enrollment 
in a militia of all able-bodied men between the ages of 
eighteen and forty-five, except those who should pay a tax 
for the privilege of exemption. This militia was to be 
called out only in the event of a general resistance to the 
laws. For the apprehension of individual offenders or of 
those acting in small bodies, he recommended a system of 
state police reaching into every county. Both militia and 
police should be under the control of the governor, whose 
power should be reinforced by a provision enabling him to 
establish martial law in any troublesome district. 

295] 295 



296 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



It was not long- before an elaborate militia bill was re- 
ported in the lower house and speedily carried over the in- 
effective resistance of the minority. It contained all the 
features called for by the governor's message. All able- 
bodied men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were 
divided into two classes : the " state guard composed of 
all volunteers enrolled, armed and regularly drilled in each 
county; and the "reserve militia", consisting of all those 
not enrolled in the guard. The governor was made com- 
mander-in-chief and empowered to appoint and commission 
all general, field, company, and staff officers, and to control 
the organization of both branches of the militia. He was 
also given full power to call into active service the military 
force of the state 

in time of war, rebellion, insurrection, invasion, resistance to 
civil process, breach of the peace, or imminent danger thereof, 
. . . [and] . . . whenever in his opinion the enforcement of 
the law is obstructed within any county or counties, by com- 
binations of lawless men too strong for the control of the civil 
authorities, to declare such county or counties under martial 
law and to suspend the laws therein until the legislature 
shall convene and take such action as it may deem necessary. 
. . . The expense of maintaining the state guard or reserve 
militia, called into active service under this section, may, in 
whole or in part, in the discretion of the governor, be assessed 
upon the people of the county or counties where the laws are 
suspended. 1 

When the bill went to the senate, the eleven Democrats 
and three conservative Republicans, headed by Senators 
Bowers and Webster Flanagan, gave the fifteen radical or 
administration Republicans a long, hard fight. Flanagan 
offered a substitute that differed from the administration 



1 Gammel, VI, 185-190. 



297] 



RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW 



297 



measure chiefly in these points : the militia officers were to 
be elected by the enlisted men or the lower officers; the 
force was to be called out only by the local civil authorities, 
the district judge, justice of the peace, or sheriff; and no 
provision was made for the declaration of martial law 
or for quartering troops or assessing expenses upon any 
county. With a majority of one vote, the radicals at length 
defeated the substitute, on June 21st; and then, in violation 
of an agreement, moved the previous question. Twelve of 
the minority then withdrew, ostensibly for consultation, 
thereby breaking the quorum. They were immediately ar- 
rested, but, with the exception of four who were neces- 
sary to a quorum, were, despite their protests, wholly ex- 
cluded from their seats. The original bill was passed within 
a few minutes afterwards. 1 A few days later, Alford, one 
of the senators released in order to secure a quorum, was ex- 
pelled by the " rump " on the ground that he had resisted 
arrest. 

Taking full advantage of this happy situation, the radical 
senators kept their fellow-members under arrest for more 
than three weeks, and during that time disposed of a num- 
ber of administration measures as fast as they could be 
rushed through the lower house. One of these, carrying 
out the recommendation of Governor Davis, provided for 
the organization of a state police, to consist of some two 
hundred and fifty men headed by a chief of police, but com- 
pletely under the control of the governor. 2 This measure 
attracted less public attention and met with less opposition 
than the militia bill, evidently because it conferred no ex- 
traordinary power upon the executive; but it was to prove 

1 House Journal, pp. 6, 135, 175 ; Senate Journal, 63, 98, 122, 209-227, 
247-249, 252, 261. 

2 House Journal, 104, 210, 3J2-I4; Senate Journal, 170, 251, 275, 
278-79; Gammel, VI, i93-*95- 



208 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[2 9 8 



the more dangerous of the two. Another act, passed at the 
instance of the governor with the laudable intent of dimin- 
ishing homicides, put restrictions upon the indiscriminate 
carrying of dangerous weapons. 

The determination of the radical majority to fasten the 
hold of their faction upon the state in every way possible 
was manifested in a series of acts vesting extraordinary 
powers in the governor. He was given complete control 
over the registration of voters, and he was empowered to 
appoint to a number of offices which the constitution made 
elective. These included not only all vacated offices, but 
those to which, for certain reasons, no elections had been 
held. For instance, the form of the various judicial dis- 
tricts had first to be determined by the legislature ; but even 
when that had been done, no election was allowed for dis- 
trict attorneys or clerks, and Davis was authorized to ap- 
point them instead. An even more flagrant violation of the 
principle of local self-government was the extension of 
the executive's appointing power to the governing bodies 
of towns. New charters were granted to a number of cities 
and towns, and in the case of every one of importance the 
governor was allowed to appoint the mayor and board of 
aldermen who were to control the other officials. The ex- 
planation of this remarkable arrangement was that the char- 
ters were drafted by local radical politicians, who feared that 
under the unrestricted suffrage then existing they could 
not carry a municipal election. 1 Not content with these 
partisan measures the radicals also passed an act postponing 

1 In Galveston when the citizens and newspapers protested against 
the charter backed by Ruby and others, the State Journal had the 
temerity and bad taste to taunt the press and the citizens with being 
" at the mercy of the governor ", and to threaten them with punishment 
at his hands in the matter of appointments unless they ceased their 
attacks upon his administration. — Issue of July 15, 1870. 



299] RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW 2 gg 

until 1872 the regular elections, which for representatives 
in Congress should have been held in the fall of 1870 and 
for state offices in 1871. 1 The nominal purpose of this 
change was to make the state and Congressional elections 
coincide; but the effect really desired was to extend one 
year longer the lease of power of the radicals elected in 
1869. The State Journal, the official organ, frankly avowed 
that the purpose was to prevent the offices from falling into 
the hands of the enemies of the administration. 2 By an- 
other act the governor was authorized to designate in each 
judicial district a newspaper that should be the official 
organ and do the public printing for that district. No 
public notice could be legally advertised except in this 
organ. The governor was thus enabled to reward " loyal " 
papers and to establish a chain of organs that would " radi- 
ate civilization into the darkest corners of the state ". A 
number of sheets that otherwise must have sunk were thus 
kept afloat; and in a few cases Democratic journals were 
willing to accept the patronage on the terms required. 

However, not all the important acts of this session were 
for the building of a party machine. The laws of the late 
provisional and military governments were declared in 
force until superseded by new ones, and all state and county 
officers were authorized to act under them. The gover- 
nor's message had given especial attention to the frontier, 
and one of the first measures enacted provided for raising 
and equipping twenty companies of rangers for service 
against the Indians; while a later act authorized the sale 
of $750,000 of seven per cent, state bonds for the main- 
tenance of the new force. An attempt was made to or- 
ganize a general system of public schools under a state 



1 Gammel, VI, 302-313. 

2 Issue of July 15, 1870. 



300 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[300 



superintendent of education, the schools of each county to 
be managed by the county police court ; but popular hostility 
to the admission of negroes to the public schools, coupled 
with inefficient management by the courts, rendered the 
plan in large measure a failure. 

The subject of state aid to railroads occupied much time 
and attention. No less than fifty-two bills were introduced 
for the incorporation or relief of as many railroad com- 
panies. The two most prominent of these bills were for 
aiding the International and the Southern Pacific, both 
trunk lines. The latter had first been chartered in 1852, 
and again in 1856, and had built into the state some forty- 
six miles before the war. It was now proposed to renew its 
forfeited land grants and in addition to donate to the com- 
pany $16,000 of seven per cent, gold-bearing state bonds 
for every mile of road built. The bill passed with little 
opposition in either house, but was vetoed by Governor 
Davis on the ground that the new constitution forbade any 
grant of land except to actual settlers, and that the terms 
of the proposed bond issue were unsatisfactory. In his first 
message he had favored liberal charters to railroads, but 
had opposed the old practice of granting subsidies. The 
senate repassed the bill, but in the house it failed of the 
necessary two-thirds by three votes. The International bill 
was more successful. It carried no land grant, but donated 
$16,000 of eight per cent, bonds for every mile of road, and 
attempted to protect these bonds by a provision that the 
bonded debt of the state for internal improvements should 
never exceed twelve millions of dollars. 1 This was the 
only railroad subsidy that received the governor's approval. 
Rumor had much to say of improper influences at work to 
secure the passage of these bills; but conclusive proof is 



1 Gammel, VI, 606-612. 



301] RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW 30I 

lacking, and the crying need for railroads, especially for 
trunk lines, affording outlets to the north and east, would 
partially account for the strong support given them by mem- 
bers of all parties. 

2. The Growth of the Opposition. 

Long before the legislative session closed, a widespread 
and powerful opposition had begun to gather against the 
radical policies. The conservative Republicans, who at 
first had manifested a willingness to accept the result of the 
recent struggle by aligning themselves with Davis's admin- 
istration, found their advances repulsed or coldly accepted 
and made the subject of the irritating sarcasm of the ad- 
ministration journals. Though continuing their support 
half-heartedly for a time, they were soon hinting at the 
necessity for a conference of the Hamilton Republicans. 1 
In the meantime the radicals were rapidly presenting the 
opposition with issues upon which to organize. The militia 
bill precipitated a most acrimonious discussion, that was 
further embittered by the arrest and temporary exclusion 
of the opposition minority in the senate. Not a newspaper, 
except those dependent upon administration patronage, fav- 
ored the bill. Governor Davis's significant declaration that 
" a slow civil war " was going on in Texas ; the eagerness 
with which the administration organs exploited every op- 
portunity to picture the state as overwhelmed with lawless- 
ness; and the submission to the legislature by Newcomb, 
secretary of state, of a report to the same effect — were all 
regarded as evidences of a radical scheme to subject the 
state to military power. 

Although, as we have seen, the state-police act did not 
arouse much opposition at first, the operations of the force 
that was immediately organized under it further inflamed 

1 Austin Republican, June 14 and 28, 1870. 



302 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



[302 



the feeling against the radicals. It can not be denied that 
a certain necessity existed for some measure of this kind; 
for a number of districts were still infested by desperadoes 
against whom the local officials seemed powerless. Nor 
can it be denied that the new police, able to concentrate at 
any point and unaffected by local considerations, did much 
valuable service in cleaning out infested regions. But they 
did not confine themselves to these legitimate and praise- 
worthy services. Some of the worst desperadoes in the 
state took service in the police, and under the shield of 
authority committed the most high-handed outrages : bare- 
faced robbery, arbitrary assessments upon helpless com- 
munities, unauthorized arrests, and even the foulest murders 
were proven against them. 1 Undoubtedly the governor and 
his adjutant-general, Davidson, had been grossly imposed 
upon ; and they willingly removed the worst offenders when 
the evidence of their guilt became overwhelming. That, 
however, did not make the police popular; for they were 
used so often to enforce the arbitrary will of the governor, 
that they became the very emblems of despotic authority. 
Nor did the fact that many of them were negroes lessen the 
irritation and uneasiness that their presence always pro- 
duced. 

The manner in which the governor exercised the extra- 
ordinary if not wholly unconstitutional appointive powers 
vested in him by the legislature constituted another griev- 
ance. Although many of his appointments, especially to 
judicial offices, were excellent, others were of a more than 
doubtful character, due partly to a lack of good material 

1 Especially notorious were Captains Jack Helm and C. S. Bell, 
who were in the habit of arresting persons against whom they had a 
grudge and killing them for " attempting to escape." For accounts of 
particularly atrocious murders, see the Austin Daily Republican, Nov. 
1 and 18; also Oct. 10, 12 and 25; and Tri-Weekly State Gazette, Oct. 
12 and Nov. 25, 1870. 



303] RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW 303 

within the radical ranks, and partly to the fact that those 
best qualified frequently refused to accept office under a 
radical administration. 

But the heaviest indictment against Davis was that he 
had built up in the interest of his faction an essentially one- 
man power ; for he had so shaped the laws and the adminis- 
tration, that his power over the people of Texas was as 
truly military as that wielded by the recent commanders of 
the Fifth Military District. In actual fact the liberty and 
life of every citizen lay in the governor's hands. It is not 
easy to prove that Davis consciously intended to abuse this 
power; on the contrary it would seem that what others re- 
garded as an abuse he considered a necessary extension of 
authority. It must be remembered, in justice to him, that 
he viewed his administration not solely as a return to local 
self-government, but as a continuation by the state of the 
national process of reconstruction. He knew that his party 
was a minority of the voting population of Texas, and he 
had no confidence in the disposition of the white majority 
to abide by the laws, especially those establishing the civil 
and political rights of the negroes, unless overawed by mil- 
itary power. 

By midsummer the two wings of the Republicans were 
openly at war again, and the Democrats were planning to 
take advantage of the growing hostility to the radical 
regime. However, the rapid and spontaneous development 
of the spirit of opposition outran the slower if more method- 
ical organization of party, and was generally manifested 
in mass meetings that bore no party affiliation. Some of 
the more astute politicians, indeed, were not anxious to 
draw party lines at this time lest it should divide and 
weaken the anti-radical forces ; hence a movement was early 
set on foot to unite the conservatives and the Democrats 
on a liberal platform under which " dead issues such as 



304 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [304 

negro suffrage, should be buried. A considerable body of 
extreme Democrats, however, bitterly opposed any fusion 
and demanded a straightout Democratic organization and 
platform, with none of the old issues eliminated. 1 

On July 9th a group of prominent men representing all 
parties, including several legislators who had been elected 
on the radical ticket, met at Austin to organize the opposi- 
tion. A week later they issued a public address, reviewing 
and condemning in the strongest terms the Davis policies, 
and presented in the name of the people of Texas a peti- 
tion to Congress for a guarantee of a republican form of 
government. 2 

Whatever Governor Davis had gained earlier by the ad- 
hesion of former conservatives and Democrats, was now 
offset by defections in his own party. He quarreled with 
the comptroller, Bledsoe, over the manner of endorsement 
of the new frontier bonds, 3 with the result that they were 
placed on the market without the signature of either the 
comptroller or the treasurer. Their validity was questioned, 
they could not be sold, and it became impossible to pay or 
equip the companies raised for the protection of the fron- 
tier; the United States refused to accept the services of the 
rangers or to furnish them supplies ; the Indians raided un- 
checked, and the blame was laid on the governor. United 
States Senator Morgan Hamilton had from the first op- 
posed Davis's frontier policy and had much to do with dis- 

1 The most important Democratic journals advocating fusion were 
the Houston Telegraph and the Galveston News; the State Gazette 
led the opposition to it. For an able argument for fusion, see a 
speech of W. M. Walton in Austin Republican, Oct. 4, or Tri-Weekly 
State Gazette, Oct. 12, 1870. 

2 Austin Republican, July 14, 26, 27, 28; Tri-Weekly State Gazette, 
July 25, 1870. Among those participating were J. W. Throckmorton, 
B. H. Epperson, J. L. Haynes, W. M. Walton, and Webster Flanagan. 

3 Supra, p. 299. 



305] RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW 



crediting the bonds in the New York market ; and now the 
administration journals attacked Hamilton viciously and 
drove him into the anti-Davis camp, whence he retaliated 
with a scorching letter against the printing law. His col- 
league, J. W. Flanagan, who had brought so much strength 
to the radical ticket in east Texas the year before, balked 
at the militia and police bills and was soon numbered with 
the anti-administration forces. 1 Nevertheless the governor 
persisted in his policy and in his methods of enforcing it; 
he continued the arbitrary use of the state police, and dis- 
played an unnecessary readiness to try the experiment of 
martial law, which only increased anger and apprehension. 2 
In the special elections ordered for the last of November to 
fill vacancies in the legislature it was clear enough that a 
reaction against radicalism had set in, for the Democrats 
and conservatives captured several districts that had gone 
for the radicals the year before. 3 

In some districts the conservatives and Democrats had 
agreed upon a fusion policy, in others they had not been 
able to agree; 4 but as it became clear that the conservatives 

1 Austin Republican, July 14, 16, 18; Aug. 2, 27, Sept. 6, 8, 10, 30, 
1870; State Journal, Aug. 4, 1870. 

2 In commenting upon an order of Davis that persons arrested by 
the police for attempting to evade the quarantine regulations of 
Houston be tried by court martial, the Austin Republican said : " The 
attempt to try a citizen by martial law is a naked usurpation and one 
that no citizen of this State will submit to. General Davis may order 
a dozen courts martial, if it may please him to be guilty of so much 
folly, but he will never try any man in Texas by his courts. The day 
that E. J. Davis attempts to execute the findings of any court martial 
against any citizen of this State will be the blackest day in the calendar 
of his life."— Oct. 11, 1870. 

3 Two of these counties, Houston and Cherokee, were threatened 
with martial law because of alleged intimidation of voters. State 
Journal, Dec. 17, 18, 28, 1870. 

4 At Seguin a fusion convention, December 9, nominated John 
Hancock for congress. — Austin Republican, Dec. 24, 1870. 



3 o6 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [306 

were too weak to stand alone, that they would not go back 
to the support of Davis, and that Davis himself would never 
be able to stem the current of reaction setting so strongly 
against him, the anti-fusion Democrats were able to carry 
through their plans for an outright Democratic organiza- 
tion. On November 22d a call was issued for a state con- 
vention of the party to be held in Austin on January 23, 
1871. " This call may result in the inauguration of a popu- 
lar movement in which all good citizens may join," said the 
conservative organ, which urged its friends to " stand and 
wait 'V 

When the convention met the liberal element was in con- 
trol; and, though the cardinal principles of the Democracy 
were reaffirmed, the platform adopted made no mention of 
" dead issues ", but invited " all good citizens, whatever 
may have been their past political preferences ", to help 
drive from power the radicals, whose objectionable and ex- 
traordinary measures were condemned seriatim. A thor- 
ough state organization was planned, with general and 
county committees; and provision was made for the estab- 
lishment in Austin of a central party organ, which made 
its appearance in July as the Democratic Statesman. 2 The 
conservative Republicans generally appear to have acceded 
to the one-sided alliance; for the Austin Republican ac- 
cepted the platform, though without enthusiasm — " the 
people of Texas care nothing for party or for party names." 
A week later this organ of the helpless Jack Hamilton fac- 
tion ceased publication. 

In the meantime the Twelfth Legislature had met for 
what it was pleased to term its first regular session. The 
governor informed the houses that the work of reorganiza- 



1 Austin Republican, Nov. 28, 1870. 

2 Austin Republican, Jan. 26, 1871 ; Ann. Cyc. 1871, pp. 734-735- 



307] RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW 

tion had been largely performed, that the people generally 
were aiding the officers in re-establishing order, and that 
an improved condition of affairs was manifest. More than 
ninety thousand citizens had been enrolled in the militia; 
objectionable persons had been removed from the state 
police, and this force, though small, had made 978 arrests 
during the previous six months. 1 No further radical legis- 
lation of a public character was recommended and none 
of moment was enacted at this session. Notice was taken, 
however, of Morgan C. Hamilton's quarrel with the admin- 
istration, and a resolution was passed declaring invalid his 
election to the United States Senate twelve months before 
for the full term beginning in 1871, on the ground that the 
legislature had then been without the proper authority. 
General J. J. Reynolds, still stationed in Texas, was elected 
to the place; but Hamilton contested the seat and won, the 
Senate rejecting Reynolds. 2 

The worst measure of the session, and perhaps the worst 
ever passed by any Texas legislature, was one granting to 
two parallel railroads, the Southern Pacific and the Mem- 
phis, El Paso and Pacific, $6,000,000 of thirty-year eight 
per cent, state bonds, under the sole condition that the roads 
unite at a point about halfway across the state. It was 
provided that these bonds might later be exchanged for 
public land at the rate of twenty-four sections for every 
mile. 3 Since the roads were already claiming sixteen sec- 
tions under an old act they ran a good chance of getting a 
total gift of over twenty-two millions of acres. The gov- 
ernor sent in an indignant veto message, exposing the char- 
acter of the grant and showing that it would entail an an- 

1 Senate Journal, 12th Legislature, 1871, pp. 23-39. 

2 Cong. Globe, 1st sess. 42nd Cong., pp. 4, 168, 169. 

3 A " section " is six hundred and forty acres, a square mile. 



3 o8 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



nual tax upon the people heavier than was demanded for 
the support of the state government ; but his veto was over- 
ridden almost without discussion. In counting up the 
charges against Davis's administration, not a suspicion can 
rest against his financial honesty, of which this veto message 
is an enduring monument. 1 An effort was made by some 
of the more scrupulous radicals to repeal the act postponing 
the general state elections to 1872, but in caucus the ma- 
jority decided in favor of the postponement, and Speaker 
Evans, who refused to be bound thereby, was removed and 
W. H. Sinclair elected in his stead. 2 

The legislature adjourned May 31st to meet again on 
September 12th. Meanwhile, preparations were making for 
the Congressional campaign. In each of the four districts 
radical-Republican and Democratic candidates were named 
by their respective conventions, and the excitement attending 
this first battle under an unrestricted suffrage was inten- 
sified by factional disturbances within the ranks of each 
party. The unprecedented expenses of the state, the ab- 
normal tax rate, and the prospect of another session of 
legislative extravagance could not fail to prove effective 
weapons against the radicals; and a group of prominent 
citizens of both the anti-radical parties issued a call for a 
state taxpayers' convention to be held at Austin to protest 
against exorbitant public expenditures. 3 The call met with 
a ready response. County taxpayers' meetings were held 
in all parts of the state, delegates were selected and a 
widely representative body met at the capital on September 
22d. Ex-Governor E. M. Pease was elected president, and 
committees were appointed on general business, to gather 

1 Senate Journal, pp. 1217-1222. For the act, Gammel, VI, 1623-1628. 

2 House Journal, 1474-&2 ; Daily State Journal, May 9, 10, and 12, 1871. 

3 Democratic Statesman, August 12, 1871. 



309] RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW 

tax statistics, and to confer with the governor. Davis, how- 
ever, refused to recognize the convention in any way and 
headed a counter-demonstration of several hundred ne- 
groes. 1 The report of the committee on statistics dis- 
closed that the rate for state taxes alone had risen from 
fifteen cents in i860 and in 1866 to two dollars and seven- 
teen and one-half cents on the one hundred dollars valua- 
tion, exclusive of that levied to pay interest on the bonds 
donated to the International and the Southern Pacific rail- 
roads, which would equal about sixty cents additional, and 
exclusive also of a two-dollar poll tax. 2 The convention 
did much to consolidate the opposition and to direct it upon 
a most vulnerable point of attack. 

As the election drew near and it became evident that the 
result would be close, the excitement increased. Governor 
Davis issued on August 9th an election order, designed to 
secure peace and decorum at the polls, but so unnecessarily 

1 Democratic Statesman, Sept. 23, and 26, 1871. 

2 The rate per $100 valuation was made up as follows : 



General property tax, state $0,500 

" " " county 0.250 

Roads and bridges 0.250 

School-houses 0.125 

Special school tax 1.000 

Frontier-bond interest 0.050 



Total $2,175 

The poll taxes were: 

For schools $1.00 

" roads and bridges 1.00 

Total $2.00 



There were also occupation and license taxes. Because of the ques- 
tionable validity of the one per cent, school tax the committee advised 
the people to refuse to pay it. See reports in full in Democratic States- 
man, Oct. 3 and 5, 1871. 



310 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ 3IO 

stringent as to aggravate still further the feeling against 
him. 1 The election took place at the county seats, from 
October 3rd to 6th. The polling booths were surrounded 
by armed militiamen and state police, many of them ne- 
groes, and the voters were required to deploy in single file 
through a narrow plank lane under the eyes of Davis's offi- 
cials. Nevertheless, the Democratic candidates for Congress 
were all successful. In the first district, W. S. Herndon 
defeated G. W. Whitmore, 16,172 votes to 11,572; in the 
second district, J. C. Conner defeated A. M. Bryant, 18,285 
to 5,948; in the third, D. C. Giddings beat Wm. T. Clark 
by 23,374 to 20,406 ; and in the fourth, John Hancock was 
successful over E. Degener by 17,010 to 12,636 votes. 2 

Notwithstanding the precautions taken, or perhaps be- 
cause of them, serious disturbances amounting to intimida- 
tion occurred in several counties, and in others the cry of 
fraud was raised by both sides. The board of state can- 
vassers threw out the votes of several counties, but changed 
the result only in the third district, where Clark was de- 
clared elected over Giddings. The latter contested the seat, 
however, and after a long struggle obtained it, despite the 
efforts of Davis, who seems to have been actuated by a 
private grudge against him. 3 Limestone and Freestone 
counties, where there was the greatest disorder, Davis de- 
termined to punish with severity ; they were declared under 
martial law, issuance of the writ of habeas corpus was 

1 The order is printed in the Daily State Journal, Aug. 10, 1871 ; also 
in Comprehensive History of Texas, II, pp. 191-192. 

2 Ann. Cyc, 1871, p. 736. Whitmore, Clark, and Degener, Repub- 
licans, had been elected in 1869. Conner, Democrat, was the only in- 
cumbent retained. 

3 Cong. Globe, 2nd sess., 42nd Cong., p. 3385. Giddings was seated 
on May 13, 1872. For this contest consult index to proceedings of 
this session under " Contested Elections, Texas." 



3i i ] RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW ^11 

prohibited, an assessment of $50,000 was levied upon Lime- 
stone, and state troops were quartered there. 1 The legis- 
lature, however, which was again in session, called upon 
him for the reasons for his action, and on November 6th 
passed a resolution disapproving it as unnecessary and un- 
called for, because the courts were unobstructed and the 
legislature in actual session. 2 Ten days later the governor 
revoked his proclamation. This was by no means the first 
time Davis had made use of the power the militia law 
granted him. Earlier in the year Walker and Hill counties 
had been subjected to this treatment, because of local dis- 
turbances; and in the former a man was tried and con- 
demned to the penitentiary by military commission. 

Disagreements between certain of the administration offi- 
cials gave no end of satisfaction to the Democrats. Gov- 
ernor Davis and Comptroller Bledsoe had been quarreling 
ever since their induction into office, but at last on one point 
they agreed. Bledsoe refused to countersign the Interna- 
tional Railroad bonds, asserting his belief that their issu- 
ance was unconstitutional. Davis had always opposed them, 
but the treasurer, G. W. Honey, took the opposite view, 
and a lively quarrel ensued. In May, 1872, while Honey 
was away, Davis declared that he had vacated the office 
of treasurer, appointed B. Graham to the position and with 
the aid of the state police took possession. Honey tried to 
regain possession, but the governor prevented him, alleging 
that a shortage in accounts of the office had been dis- 
covered. The question was fought out in the courts; the 
missing money was shown to have been lent to a local 
bank, but Graham was retained in the treasurership. In 

1 Proclamation of October 9th in Daily State Journal, Oct. 11, 1871. 

2 Ann. Cyc, 1871, p. 732. For the evidence adduced by Davis, see 
House Journal, 12th Legis., adjourned session, pp. 191-211; Daily State 
Journal, Oct. 13, 1871. The evidence was strong, but wholly ex parte. 



312 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [3^ 

November, Adjutant-General James Davidson, head of the 
police force, absconded with about $30,000 of the state's 
funds. The opposition did not fail to charge the governor 
with responsibility and complicity in the defalcation, but 
not the slightest proof of personal dishonesty on the part 
of Davis was found. It seems true, however, that he arbi- 
trarily and needlessly allowed unbonded officers who were 
in his confidence to handle large sums belonging to the state, 
and to that extent made Davidson's defalcation possible. 

Toward the middle of 1872 public attention was cen- 
tered once more upon national politics. The Texas Repub- 
licans met in convention at Houston in May to nominate 
candidates for Presidential electors and Congressmen at 
large, and to select delegates to the national convention of 
their party. The platform endorsed President Grant and 
instructed the delegates to support him for renomination ; 
denounced the nomination of Horace Greeley by the Lib- 
eral Republicans at Cincinnati ; and applauded the meas- 
ures of Governor Davis's administration, especially with 
regard to public free schools, internal improvements, and 
the defence of the frontier. The Democrats, who met in 
Corsicana in June, re-affirmed their platform of the pre- 
vious year, denounced the Republican administrations in 
state and nation, expressed approval of the action of the 
Liberal Republicans, and promised to support whatever 
course the Baltimore convention should take. On state 
matters they promised support to the public schools and 
protection to the frontier, but condemned the granting of 
money subsidies by the state to private corporations. 1 Some 
of the extreme Democrats refused to follow the lead of 
Greeley and accepted O'Conor as their Presidential candi- 
date; and the split in the organization was here and there 



1 Ann. Cyc, 1872, p. 765, 766. 



313] RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW 

carried into the local campaign now being hotly waged for 
control of the new legislature. Another question, a sec- 
tional one, that involved some political trading, was the 
selection of a state capital. 

There should have been no doubt of the result; for the 
Congressional election of the year before had shown that 
the Democrats had a clear majority in the greater part of 
the state. Moreover, a number of radicals had become 
dissatisfied with Governor Davis, whom they now regarded 
as responsible for the increase of Democratic strength, and 
as too great a burden for the Republicans to carry. The 
election was held November 5th to 8th. Greeley received 
a majority of 19,020 over Grant; all the Democratic nomi- 
nees for Congress were successful; and the Democrats 
secured a decided majority in the legislature. 

3. Election of 1873 and the End. 
The end of Republican rule was now in sight, provided 
the Federal government should not interfere. With an un- 
friendly legislature the governor would find his policies 
greatly hampered if not wholly blocked, and in another 
year his present term would end. The Democrats indulged 
in threats of impeachment, but when the Thirteenth Legis- 
lature met, January 14, 1873, tne idea na d been abandoned. 
Davis's message was mild and conciliatory, but the Demo- 
crats had a program to carry out: they promptly repealed 
the public printing law and the state-police act, and so 
amended the militia act as to deprive the governor of any 
extraordinary powers derived therefrom. 1 The " enabling 
act " under which Davis had appointed officers whom the 
constitution made elective, the registration and election 

1 Gammel, VII, 456, 468, 493. A new act was passed to regulate 
public printing, but it carefully avoided the bad features of the former 
one. 



314 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [3^ 

laws, and the school law were either repealed or shorn of 
their objectionable features. In every case, except the three 
last named, the governor withheld his consent, and the new 
act passed over his veto or became a law by his failure to 
return it within the constitutional five days. Another act 
of importance provided that the next general election for 
governor and all other state and county officers should be 
held on the first Tuesday in December, 1873 ; and to this the 
governor assented. The rest of the work of the Thirteenth 
Legislature need not be detailed; sufficient it is to say the 
members have been styled the " liberators of Texas." 

Preparations were now making for the final struggle. 
In August the Republicans held their state convention in 
Dallas, dominated by Governor Davis ; they nominated him 
for re-election, offered a liberal platform, and denounced 
the acts of the recent legislature. The Democrats held a 
large and enthusiastic convention in Austin early the next 
month and nominated Judge Richard Coke and R. B. Hub- 
bard for governor and lieutenant-governor. The lengthy 
platform expressed confidence in the outcome of the elec- 
tions ; congratulated the people upon the repeal of the " op- 
pressive, odious and unconstitutional acts " of the radical 
Republicans; promised that the government should be ad- 
ministered in no retaliatory spirit, but in the interest of 
every citizen regardless of color, station, or politics; of- 
fered encouragement to immigration and to railroads, and 
protection to the frontier; and advocated the calling of a 
constitutional convention. 1 

As the time of election approached the greatest excite- 
ment prevailed. As in 1869, the chief reliance of Davis 
was upon the negro vote, and the old organization of the 
Loyal League, which had been zealously kept up during all 

1 Ann. Cyc, 1873, pp. 737-739. The constitutional convention was 
held in 1876 and adopted the constitution now (1910) in force. 



315] RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW ^5 

this time, was made the most of. To everyone, however, 
except Davis himself, the result was never in doubt. Stub- 
bornly refusing to believe himself beaten, he carried the 
fight into those eastern counties where the heavy black popu- 
lation had made radicalism most hated and himself de- 
nounced and threatened as the chief exponent of negro 
domination. But his personal courage did not avail him. 
The whites were determined that E. J. Davis should never 
again rule over Texas, that radical-carpetbag-negro domi- 
nation was to be ended. It was in a sense a revolution. 
There is no shadow of a doubt of fraud and intimidation at 
this election. " Davis negroes " were in many communities 
ordered to keep away from the polling places, while white 
men under age were voted. On the other hand negro 
Democrats were threatened by Loyal Leaguers. 1 The total 
vote was surprisingly large; 85,549 votes were cast for 
Coke and 42,663 for Davis. All the new state officials were 
Democrats, as were the great majority of the legislators and 
the county officers. 

But the radicals were not done. Even after making lib- 
eral allowance for irregularities at the polls, there was no 
question that the verdict of the people was against them; 
but that alone would not have mattered, for theirs had 
always been a minority rule. It was now determined to 
have the courts set aside the election, and then, if necessary, 
to appeal to Grant for assistance. A test case was provided 
in a habeas corpus proceeding before the state supreme 
court to release from the custody of the sheriff one Joseph 
Rodriguez, a Mexican, charged with voting more than once 
in the election. The constitution provided that " all elec- 
tions . . . shall be held at the county seats of the several 



1 These statements have often been made by Democrats who knew 
of the circumstances. 



316 



RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 



counties until otherwise provided by law; and the polls 
shall be open for four days ..." 1 It was well known that 
the four-day period was intended to apply only so long as 
the elections should be held at the county seats; and when 
the last legislature provided for holding them in the various 
precincts, only one day was allowed. But the radicals now 
made the point that the two clauses above quoted, because 
of the semicolon that separated them, were wholly distinct 
provisions, and that the recent election had been an illegal 
one because not held for four days. The court sustained 
this view, Rodriguez was released, and the election was de- 
clared void. 2 Moreover, Davis announced that he would 
not give up his office until April 28, 1874, four years from 
the date of his inauguration, or until a successor should be 
legally elected and installed, and by proclamation ordered 
the recently-elected officers and legislators not to attempt 
to exercise their functions. 3 

The Democrats had no thought of yielding to the court 
or the governor. At the proper time the newly-elected state 
officers and legislators arrived in Austin, and on January 
1 2th, the night before the legislature was to convene, a 
conference of the Democratic leaders was held. It had been 
discovered that Davis had planned armed resistance and 
that a body of negro militia was at hand to prevent the 
Democrats from taking possession of the capitol. Late 
that night the Democrats took possession of the upper 
stories of the building ; the negro militia held the lower. In 
the meantime Davis had telegraphed Grant for military as- 

1 Art. 3, sec. 6. See Gammel, VII, p. 399. 

2 Ex parte Rodriguez, 39 Texas Reports, pp. 709. This is known 
among lawyers as the " semi-colon decision " ; and so odious has it been 
that no lawyer likes to cite any opinion delivered by this court. See 
Comprehensive History of Texas, II, 201. 

3 Ann. Cyc, 1873, pp. 739-740. 



3 1 j J RADICAL RULE AND ITS OVERTHROW 

sistance, but the President wisely refused. Next morning 
the two houses convened and sent a joint committee to 
Davis, who declined to recognize the legislature. The sec- 
retary of state, Newcomb, refused to give up the election 
returns, until Davis so far yielded as to allow them to be 
taken under protest. This was done on the 1 5th. The votes 
were counted and Coke and Hubbard duly inaugurated. 
Davis still held out; he ordered another company of militia 
to his aid, the Travis Rifles, but it obeyed the command of 
the new Democratic adjutant-general, McCulloch, instead; 
and he appealed once more to the Federal government and 
was again refused. During all this time Austin was full of 
greatly-excited armed citizens, who were with difficulty 
restrained from attacking the negro militia. Finding it 
useless to resist further, Davis gave in on the 17th and re- 
tired. Coke took possession, and the radical regime was at 
an end. 1 Thus, nine years after the close of the Civil War 
and nearly four years after Texas had been readmitted to 
the Union, the state was once more really in the hands of 
her own people. 

The administration of Davis was responsible for more of 
the bitterness with which the people of Texas have remem- 
bered the reconstruction era than all that happened from 
the close of the war to 1870. In fact the word reconstruc- 
tion recalls to most people first of all the arbitrary rule of 
this radical governor; and certainly the name of no Texan 
has gone down to posterity so hated as his. But after all, 
Davis has not been fairly judged. He was self-willed, ob- 
stinate, pig-headed almost beyond belief; a most intense 
and narrow partisan, who could see nothing good in an 

x The account here given is taken from that of O. M. Roberts in the 
Comprehensive History of Texas, II, pp. 201-207, and Ann. Cyc., 1873, 
pp. 739-741. A slightly different account is that of T. B. Wheeler in 
the Quarterly of the Texas State Hist. Ass'n., XI, pp. 56-63. 



3 i8 RECONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS [ 3 j8 

opponent and nothing evil in a friend. Surrounded by a 
group of the most unprincipled adventurers that ever dis- 
graced a government, he suffered from their advice and 
their acts. Yet his administration was his own and he 
guided it with the iron hand of a martinet; he had no 
regard for the popular will, he consulted no desires but his 
own, and he was absolutely devoid of tact. But, apparently 
without scruples in matters purely political, Davis was per- 
sonally honest. He never descended to the vulgar level of 
greed and dishonesty so common to his satellites ; it can not 
be shown that he ever diverted one cent of public money to 
his own pocket. More than that, he strove to give the state 
an honest financial administration and to save it from spolia- 
tion and bankruptcy ; and of this his vetoes of railroad sub- 
sidies is proof enough. It is true he caused the expenditure 
of great sums in other directions, and there was much scan- 
dal in the handling of the funds, but in this last Davis was 
not personally implicated. And it may be said of his 
policies with regard to police, internal improvements, and 
the schools, that it was not so much the end he had in view 
as the methods he employed that aroused resistance and 
hatred. In many respects he was the best of the faction 
that nominated him for governor in 1869; but no man could 
have been worse fitted by temperament for the delicate 
task before the local Republicans at that time. When cir- 
cumstances demanded the most painstaking moderation in 
order to overcome the effect of the Congressional policy, 
E. J. Davis and his radical associates succeeded only in 
plunging the Republican party in Texas into irretrievable 
ruin. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



i. MANUSCRIPT SOURCES. 

Executive Correspondence. — Letters to the governors, filed in the 
office of the secretary of state, Austin. Voluminous ; the best source 
for general conditions. 

Reconstruction Correspondence of Generals Griffin and Reynolds. 
Filed with the above, but in separate boxes ; contains letters, copies 
of orders and other official documents not accessible elsewhere. Many 
are concerned with the Freedmen's Bureau. 

Executive Records. — Register books, containing governors' proclama- 
tions, copies of important letters, and reports from other heads of 
administration ; and the letter-books of the secretary of state. 

No records of this period remain in the offices of the attorney- 
general, treasurer, and comptroller, all having been consumed in the 
great fire of 1881 which destroyed the old capitol building. 

Johnson Papers, in the Library of Congress. Contain a great many 
valuable letters to President Johnson on affairs in Texas, from 
both sides. 

Roberts Papers, in the History vault, University of Texas. Letters 
to O. M. Roberts ; also fragments of an autobiography, pamphlets and 
a few newspapers. 

2. PRINTED SOURCES. 

Newspapers. — The Texas State Library and the Swante Palm collec- 
tion at the University of Texas contain the most extensive files. Few 
however, are complete. These may be supplemented by files in the 
Carnegie libraries at Houston and San Antonio and in the offices of 
the Galveston News and the San Antonio Express. The newspapers 
that have been most useful are: the Southern Intelligencer (R) 1 , the 
State Gazette (D), Flake's Bulletin (R), Galveston News (D), Gal- 
veston Civilian (D), Houston Telegraph (D), San Antonio Herald 
(D), San Antonio Express (R), Texas Republican (D), Austin Repub- 
lican (!R), Houston Union (R), Houston Times (D), State Journal 
OR), Democratic Statesman (D). Nearly all of these are fairly com- 
plete. Fragmentary files of others are also to be found. 

The Townsend Library, a vast collection of clippings from the 
principal New York papers, in the Columbia University Library, covers 



1 R means Radical or Republican ; D means Conservative or Democrat. 
319] 319 



320 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



[320 



the civil war and reconstruction and contains many references, not 
always accurate, to affairs in Texas. 

Pamphlets. — Throckmorton's Address to the People of Texas, re- 
viewing and defending his administration, is in the State Library; the 
constitution proposed for " West Texas," and the Proceedings of the 
Tax Payers' Convention are in the library of the University of Texas ; 
A. J. Hamilton's Memorial was lent by Mrs. W. W. Mills of Austin. 

Public Documents. — Gammel, Laws of Texas, vols, v, vi, and vii; 
contains all the legislative acts and resolutions, and the constitutions 
of 1866 and 1869. The Convention Journals of 1866 and 1868-69 con- 
tain full accounts of the proceedings, except the debates. The House 
and Senate Journals of the nth, 12th and 13th Legislatures. The 
Official Records, War of the Rebellion, give by far the fullest in- 
formation concerning the war and are valuable for the " break-up " 
also. The various Congressional publications are indispensable; the 
Congressional Globe, the House and Senate Executive Documents, Com- 
mittee Reports, etc. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presi- 
dents, VI. United States Statutes at Large, XIII and XIV. Fleming, 
Documentary History of Reconstruction, vol. i. Texas Supreme Court 
Reports, vols. 30-39. 

Books and Periodicals. — There is no satisfactory general account of 
Texas during this period. The best is by O. M. Roberts in the Com- 
prehensive History of Texas, vol. ii, a collaborative work edited by 
Dudley G. Wooten. A few pages each are given in the histories of the 
state by John Henry Brown, Thrall, and Geo. P. Garrison. 'Scanty refer- 
ences are in John H. Reagan's Memoirs, and F. R. Lubbock's Six Decades 
in Texas. R. H. Williams, With the Border Ruffians, an unreliable 
account of conditions about San Antonio and on the Rio Grande 
during the war, barely reaches this period. W. W. Mills, Forty Years 
in El Paso, has a few helpful sketches. A Pioneer History of Wise 
County, by C. D. Cates, contains some material of local interest and 
value. E. L. Dohoney's An Average American reflects conditions in East 
fexas. Of value for railroad problems and legislation is C. S. Potts, 
Railroad Transportation in Texas (University of Texas Bulletin, no. 
119, 1909). Professor Dunning* s Essays on the Civil War and Recon- 
struction contains valuable chapters on the process of reconstruction in 
the south, with several references to Texas. The Texas Almanac, 1857- 
1873, is full of valuable statistics. Appleton's Annual Cyclopaedia for 
these years frequently gives concise information and documents not 
easily accessible elsewhere. In the Quarterly of the Texas State 
Historical Association have been published three helpful articles : " The 
Ku Klux Klan," by W. D. Wood, vol. ix, pp. 262-268 ; " Reminiscences 
of Reconstruction in Texas," by T. B. Wheeler, vol. xi, pp. 56-65 ; and 
"The Experiences of an Unrecognized Senator," by O. M. Roberts, 
posthumously published, vol. xii, pp. 87-147. 



INDEX 



Ab initio, doctrines of, 95-98, 176- 

180, 206-211, 264. 
Alexander, Wm., attorney-general, 

under A. J. Hamilton, 59; under 

E. M. Pease, 173; resigns, 178. 
Amendments to the Constitution 

of the United States, thirteenth 

and fourteenth, rejected, 118-120; 

fourteenth and fifteenth, adopted, 

290. 

Amnesty, oath of, 58. 

Andrews, Gen. C. C., district com- 
mander, 78. 

Apprenticeship law, 122-123. 

Armstrong, James, delegate to con- 
vention of 1868, 200. 

Armstrong, M. L., 258, 289. 

B 

Bacon, W. P., 161. 

Ballinger, W. P., peace commis- 
sioner, 37. 

Bell, Judge James H., secretary of 
state, 59, 264, 265. 

Bennett, A. J., 259. 

Bledsoe, A., comptroller, 285, 304, 
311. 

Bowers, state senator, 296. 
Branch, A. M., representative to 

Congress, 117. 
Brenham, burning of, 127. 
Burford, Nat. M., speaker eleventh 

legislature, 115. 
Burnet, David G., elected to U. S. 

Senate in 1866, 115. 
Burnett, J. R., 245, 263. 
Butler, J. P., 289-90. 



Cave, E. W., secretary of state, 20. 

Caldwell, Judge C, 150, 174, 189; 
delegate to convention of 1868, 
200, 206, 214, 217, 240, 242. 

Chilton, Geo. W., elected to Con- 
gress, 117. 

Civil authorities, relations with 



321] 



military, under Hamilton, 77 flo- 
under Throckmorton, 126-138, 
149 ff.; under Pease, 183-187. 
Clark, W. T., elected to Congress, 
286. 

Coke, Richard, Judge, 61; nom- 
nated governor, 314; takes seat, 
317. 

Committee of public safety, 17. 
Conditions in Texas during war, 
21 ff. 

Confederacy, admission of Texas to, 
21; break-up of, 27 ff.; property 
confiscated, 41; status of acts de 
facto of, 103-105. 

Congress, representatives to, in 
1866, 1 1 7-1 18. 

Conner, J. C, 286. 

" Conscript Law," 21. 

Conservatives (Democratic), in 
election of 1866, 108 ff.; in 
eleventh legislature, 114 ff.; 167, 
173, 188, 194, 197-199; (Repub- 
lican) appeal to Congress, 261 ff.; 
opposition to Radicals, 301 ff.; 
fusion with Democrats, 305. 

Constitutional convention of 1866, 
85 ff.; work of, 89 ff.; of 1868, 
200 ff. 

Constitution of 1866, validity of, 
176-180; of 1868, reports of com- 
mittees on, 225-228, work on, 
251-257; printing of, 255,260. 

Cotton, trade during war, 24; con- 
fusion about, 41-44. 

Courts under provisional govern- 
ment, 59-61. 

D 

Dalrymple, W. C, delegate to con- 
vention of 1866, 86. 

Davis, Col. E. J., expedition 
against Laredo, 26 ; delegate to 
convention of 1866, 89, 93 ; dele- 
gate to convention of 1868, 200; 
president of, 201 ff.; 249, 258-9, 
263, 272; campaign for governor- 
ship, 273 ff.; governor, 285 ff. 

321 



322 



INDEX 



[322 



Debt, public, in 1866, 102. 

Degener, E., delegate to conven- 
tion of 1866, 87, of 1868, 200, 206; 
286. 

Division of state, 106, 212-216, 243- 
250, 263, 264, 265. 



Economic conditions during war, 
28. 

Ector, Judge M. D., 174. 

Education, 255, 299. 

Elections: of 1866, 108 ff.; registra- 
tion for election of 1868, 161, 
165, 193-197; presidential, 235 ff.; 
of 1869, 280, 283 ff.; of 1873, 313. 

Emancipation proclamation in 
Texas, 40. 

Epperson, B. H., in election of 
1866, 108, 111-112; candidate for 
U. S. Senate, 115; representa- 
tive to Congress, 117. 

Evans, A. J., delegate to conven- 
tion of 1868, 200, 206, 207; 289. 

Evans, IraH., 289, 308. 

Evans, Lemuel Dale, delegate to 
convention of 1868, 200, 213, 254, 
290. 

F 

Flanagan, J. W., delegate to con- 
vention of 1866, 89; convention 
of 1868, 200, 204, 207; 249, 263; 
nominated lieutenant governor, 
272, elected, 285; elected U. S. 
Senator, 290; 305. .. . 

Flanagan, Webster, 204, 207, 296, 
304. 

Frazier, C. A., delegate to conven- 
tion of 1866, 89, 95. 

Freedmen, status of, 44 ff.; suffrage, 
86-88, 101, 1 19-120; labor, 70 ff.; 
121. 

Freedmen's Bureau, 70 ff.; organ- 
ization, 72; courts, 76-77, 80, 
100, 120; work, 75-77, 121-123, 
126, 129-130, 132, 138 ff.; 173. 

Frontier, 83-84, 126, 137, 299, 304. 



"General Orders, no. 40," 181, 
185, 222. 

Giddings, D. C., delegate to con- 
vention of 1866, 89; elected to 
Congress, 310. 



Graham, B., treasurer, 311. 

Granger, Gen. Gordon, in com- 
mand at Galveston, 40. 

Grant, Pres., effect of election of, 
239; indorses radicals, 275. 

Greeley, Horace, 269, 312. 

Gregory, Gen. E. M. organizes 
Freedmen's Bureau, 72-77 ; re- 
port of Bureau affairs, 134. 

Griffin, Gen., 129, 133; succeeds 
Gen. Kiddoo, 140; contest with 
Throckmorton, 149-161; death, 
174. 

H 

Hamilton, A. J., elected to Con- 
gress, 13 ; opposes secession, 20; 
provisional governor, 55 ff . ; mes- 
sage to convention of 1866, 91- 
93; in election of 1866, 11 1; 118, 
171; opposes ad initio, 179, 267; 
delegate to convention of 1868, 
200 ff . ; delegate to Washington, 
261 ff .; campaign for governor- 
ship, 268-282. 

Hamilton, M. C, 177 ; delegate to 
convention of 1868, 200 ff.; 261, 
270, 290; senator, 290, 304. 

Hancock, John, delegate to con- 
vention of 1866, 89, 96, 100; can- 
didate for senate in 1866, 115; 
elected to Congress, 310. 

Hancock, Gen. Winfield S., mili- 
tary policy, 180 ff.; controversy 
with Pease, 183-187. 

Harper's Ferry raid, effect of, in 
Texas, 13. 

Haynes, J. L., 274, 278. 

Heintzelman, Gen., commander in 
western Texas, 137. 

Henderson, ex-governor, delegate 
to convention of 1876, 89. 

Holt, Judge J. J., 174. 

Honey, G. W., state-treasurer, 
285, 311. 

Houston, Sam., elected governor, 

13; deposed, 20. 
Hubbard, R. B., lieut. -governor, 

314, 317. 

I 

Ireland, John, delegate to conven- 
tion of 1866, 89. 
" Iron clad" test oath, 116. 



323] IND 
J 

Johnson, M. T., Col., delegate to 

convention of 1866, 87. 
Johnson, Pres., proclamation, 56; 

101, 106, 109, in, 112, 125, 126, 

137, 145, 146, 157, 180. 
Jones, Geo. W., elected lieutenant 

governor, 108, 112. 
"Jury Order," 155-165. 

K 

Keuchler, Jacob, commissioner, 
285. 

Kiddoo, Gen., assistant commis- 
sioner for Texas, 121, 124, 129, 
139-140. 

Ku Klux Klan, 192, 232. 

L 

Labor : conditions, 44 ff.; laws, 
123-124. 

Latimer, A. H., delegate to con- 
vention of 1866, 89, 94; 174, 282. 

Laughlin, provost-marshal-gen- 
eral, 49. 

Lawlessness, 33-36, 67-68, 127, 
135, 160, 175, 187-192; report of 
committee on, 217-225, 245-247; 
230-233, 261, 295. 

Lee and Peacock war, 232. 

Legislature, the eleventh, 114 ff. 

Lindsay, Livingston, delegate to 
convention of 1868, 200, 206. 

Loyal Union League, 166, 173, 
179, 192, 233, 314 

" Loyalty and disloyalty, 62 ff. 

M 

Magruder, Gen., 25, 37. 

McCormick, A. P., delegate to 
convention of 1868, 200, 255. 

Mexico, the Confederacy and, 32; 
exodus to, after war, 39. 

Military: board, 24; operations in 
Texas, 25-26; relations with civil 
authority, 77 ff.; commanders, 
149 ff.; conflict with civil author- 
ity, 150-161; rule, radical, 171 ff.; 
commissions, 183, 187. 

Militia, 295-297, 310, 316. 

Mills, W. W., delegate to conven- 
tion of 1868, 213, 215; 276. 

Mower, Gen., commander Fifth 
Military District, 178, 181. 



323 

Murrah, Gov., called legislature, 
36; effort to secure terms of 
peace, 37- 

N 

Newcomb, James P., 205, 209, 
243, 247, 249, 280, 286, 301, 317. 
New Orleans conference, 37-39. 

P 

Paschal, I. A., delegate to conven- 
tion of 1866, 89, 90. 

Pease, ex-Gov. E. M., nominated 
for governor in 1866, 108; de- 
feated, 112; 166, 167; appointed 
governor, 169, 171 ff.; message to 
convention of 1868, 202-204; 245; 
in campaign of 1871, 275; in Tax- 
payers' Convention, 308. 

"Personal No. 2," 277. 

Police, state, 295, 297, 301, 313. 

Provisional government, the state 
under, 55 ff. 

R 

Radicals, in election of 1866, 108 ff.; 
in eleventh legislature, 114 ff.; 
organization after reconstruction 
acts, 166, 167, 172 ff.; in conven- 
tion of 1868, 200 v ff.; appeal to 
Congress, 261 ff.; overthrow of, 
295 ; convention of 1873, 312. 

Railroads, subsidies for, 216, 300, 
307. 

Reagan, John H., open letter of, 
87 ; open letter on freedmen's 
courts, 120-121. 

Reconstruction acts, 145 ff.; second 
supplementary act, 168. 

Reconstruction convention of 1868, 
20C ff.; second session, 242 ff.; 
final act of, 288 ff. 

Reeves, R. A., delegate to con- 
vention of 1866, 89. 

Republican conventions, 166, 209, 
270-272, 314. 

Reynolds, J. J., Gen., succeeds 
Gen. Griffin, 175; 178, 228-238, 
245, 265, 266; alliance with 
Davis, 274, 277; in final recon- 
struction, 283 ff. 

Roberts, O. M., president of seces- 
sion convention, 16; delegate to 
convention of 1866, 89 ; elected 
to U. S. Senate, 115-118. 



324 



INDEX 



[324 



Robertson, R. L., case of, 81. 

Rodriguez, Joseph, case of, 315. 

Rose, Col. I. T., 80. 

Ruby, G. T., delegate to conven- 
tion of 1868, 200, 206, 279. 

Runnels, H. R., governor, 12; 
delegate to convention of 1866, 
89. 



Saunders, X. B., delegate to con- 
vention of 1866, 89, 95. 

Secession, 11 ff.; disposition of or- 
dinance of, 94-98. 

Shelby, Gen. Joe, 35. 

Sheridan, Gen., command of south- 
west, 39; official report, 134, 169; 
commander of Fifth Military Dis- 
trict, 149-161, removal of, 180 ff. 

Sibley, Gen. H. H., expedition of , 
25- 

Slavery, 11^12; declared at an end 
in Texas, 40. 

Smith, Col. Ashbel, peace com- 
missioner to New Orleans, 37; 
119. 

Smith, Maj. G. W., 127. 

Smith, Geo. W., murder of, 231. 

Smith, Gen. Kirby E., 29, 36. 

Smith, R. K., delegate to conven- 
tion of 1868, 200, 206. 

Stanley, Gen. David S., report of, 
69. 

State government, restoration of, 
108 ff.; provisional, 149 ff. 

Stevens, Thaddeus, military bill of, 
145; 214. 

Stribling, Judge Thomas H., 161, 
265, 277, note. 

Strong, Gen. Wm. E., on condi- 
tions in Texas, 69. 

Suffrage, 101, 240, 252-255. 



Taxpayer's convention, the 308-309. 

Throckmorton, J. W., opposes 
secession, 17; delegate to conven- 
tion of 1866, 89 ; nominated gov- 
ernor, 108; elected, 112; inaug- 
ural address, 113; administration, 
126 ff.; conflict with military, 
1 49-161 ; removal, 169; Address 
to People of Texas, 170. 

Tracy, J. G., 286, 270. 

Truman, Ben. C., statements of, 
83, 94. 

Twiggs, Maj. -Gen., D. E., sur- 
render of, 17-18. 

u 

Unionists, in the confederacy, 22; 
associations, 65; violence shown 
toward, 66-70, 135; in conven- 
tion of 1866, 89, 95. 

Union League, see Loyal Union 
League. 

V 

Varnell, — , 244, 263. 
Vaughan, F. A., delegate to con- 
vention of 1868, 200. 
Victoria, negro troops at, 130. 

W 

Wheelock, Lieut. E. M., educa- 
tional work for freedmen, 76. 

Whitmore, G. W., delegate to con- 
vention of 1868, 200, 206; elected 
to Congress, 286; defeated, 310. 

Wigfall, Louis T., elected to U. S. 
Senate, 13. 

Wilson, Robert, county judge, 
report of, 136. 

Wright, Gen. H. G., department 
commander, 78, 84. 



©ulmttWa WLnivevsitvi 
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 



Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D., President. J. W. Burgess, LL.D., Professor 
of Political Science and Constitutional Law. Munroe Smith, LL.D., Professor of 
Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence. P. J. Goodnow, LL.D., Professor 
of Administrative Law and Municipal Science. E. R. A. Seligman, LL.D , Profes- 
sor of Political Economy and Finance. H. L. Osgood, Ph.D., Professor of History. 
Wm. A. Dunning, LL.D., Professor of History and Political Philosophy. J. B. Moore, 
LL.D., Professor of International Law. F. H. Giddings, LL.D., Professor 
of Sociology. J. B. Clark, LL.D., Professor of Political Economy. J. H. 
Robinson, Ph.D., Professor of History. W. M. Sloane,L.H.D., Professor of History. 
H. R. Seager, Ph.D., Professor of Political Economy. H. L. Moore, Ph.D., 
Professor of Political Economy. W. R. Shepherd, Ph.D., Professor of History. 
J. T. Shotwell, Ph.D., Professor of History. G. W. Botsford, Ph.D., Adjunct 
Professor of History. V. G. Simkhovitch, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Economic 
History. E. T. Devine, LL.D., Professor of Social Economy. Henry Johnson, 
Ph.D., Professor of History. S. McC. Lindsay, LL.D., Professor of Social Legis- 
lation. C. A. Beard, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Politics. H. R. Mussey, 
Assistant Professor of Economics. G. J. Bayles, Ph.D., Associate in Ecclesiology. 
E. E. Agger, Ph.D., Lecturer in Economics. C. H. Hayes, Ph.D., Lecturer in History. 
E. M. Sait, A.M., Lecturer in Politics. 



SCHEME OF INSTRUCTION 

GROUP I. HISTORY AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. 

Subject A. Ancient and Oriental History, eleven courses. Subject B. Mediae- 
val History, twelve courses. Subject C. Modern European History, fifteen courses. 
SubjectD. American History, seventeen courses. Subject E. Political Philosophy, 
three courses. Courses in church history given at the Union Seminary are open to 
the students of the School of Political Science. 

GROUP II. PUBLIC LAW AND COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE. 

Subject A. Constitutional Law, seven courses. Subject B. International Law, 
four courses. Subject C. Administrative Law, seven courses. Subject D. Roman 
Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, seven courses. Courses in Law given in the 
Columbia Law School are open to the students of the School of Political Science. 

GROUP III. ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 

Subject A. Political Economy and Finance, twenty courses, Subject B. 
Sociology and Statistics, twenty courses. Subject C. Social Economy, seven courses. 
Courses in Economics and Social Economy given in the School of Philanthropy are 
open to students in the School of Political Science. 



Most of the courses consist chiefly of lectures ; a smaller number take the form of 
research under the direction of a professor. In each subject is held at least one seminar 
for the training of candidates for the higher degrees. The degrees of A.M. and 
Ph.D. are given to students who fulfil the requirements prescribed by the University 
Council. (For particulars, see Columbia University Bulletins of Information, Faculty 
of Political Science.) Any person not a candidate for a degree may attend any of 
the courses at any time by payment of a proportional fee. Three or four University 
fellowships of $650 each, the Schift fellowship of #600, the Curtis fellowship 
of #600, the Garth fellowship in Political Economy of $650, and University 
scholarships of #150 each are awarded to applicants who give evidence of special 
fitness to pursue advanced studies. Several prizes of from #50 to #250 are awarded. 
The library contains over 440,000 volumes and students have access to other 
great collections in the city. 



The American Political 
Science Association 

ESTABLISHED 1903 

Woodrow Wilson, Princeton University, Albert Bushnell Hart, Harvard University, 
President Second Vice-President 

Edmund J. James, University of Illinois, W. F. Willoughby, Washington, D. C, 

First Vice-President Third Vice-President 

W. W. Willoughby, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., 
Secretary and Treasurer 

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL: 
President, Vice-Presidents, Secretary and Treasurer, ex-officio 
J.H.Latane.Washington and Lee University F. N. Judson, St. Louis, Mo. 
C. E. Merkiam, University of Chicago. Walter L. Fisher, Chicago, III. 

Theodore Woolsey, Yale University Milo R. Maltbie, New York City 

F. J. Goodnow, Columbia University W. B. Munro, Harvard University 

John A. Fairlie, University of Illinois L. S. Rowe, University of Pennsylvania 

Stephen Leacock, McGill University J. S. Reeves, Dartmouth College 

Albert Shaw, New York City W. A. Schaper, University of Minnesota 

B. E. Howard, Leland Stanford, Jr. University 



AIM 



The advancement of the scientific study of Politics, Public Law, Administra- 
tion and Diplomacy in the United States. 

MEMBERSHIP 

Any person may become a member upon payment of $3.00 annual dues. 
Life membership $50. Libraries eligible to annual membership. Members 
entitled to ail publications oj the Association issued during membership. 

PUBLICATIONS 

Proceedings 

An annual cloth-bound volume, containing papers read at the annual Decem- 
ber meetings of the Association. 

The American Political Science Review 

Published Quarterly. Each number containing : 

1 Leading articles. 

2 Notes on Current Legislation. 

3 " Notes and News," National, State, Municipal, Colonial, Foreign, Personal, 

and Miscellaneous. 

4 Reviews. 

5 Index to Political Publications, Books, Periodical Articles, and Government 

publications. 

Each number contains approximately 176 pages. The first number issued 
November, 1906. Annual subscription price to persons not members of the Associa- 
tion, #3.00. Members desiring to complete their sets of publications of the Asso- 
ciation may obtain volumes I, II, III, IV, and V of the Proceedings for one dollar each, 
and back numbers of the Review for seventy-five cents each. Specimen copy of the 
Review sent upon request. 

ADDRESS ALL REMITTANCES AND COMMUNICATIONS TO 

W. W. WILLOUGHBY 
Secretary of the JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 

American Political Science Association J u 

and Managing Editor of the Review BALTIMORE, MD. 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN 



Historical and Political Science 

UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE 
DEPARTMENTS OF HISTORY, POLITICAL ECONOMY 
AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. 



The University Studies will continue to publish, as heretofore, the re- 
sults of recent investigations in History, Political Science, and Political 
Economy. The new series will present topics of interest in the early polit- 
ical, social and economic history of Europe and the United States. The 
cost of subscription for the regular Annual Series, comprising about 600 
pages, with index, is $3.00 (foreign postage, 50 cents). Single numbers 
or special monographs, at special prices. 

Contents of Series XXVI (1908): 

I- 3. British Committees, Commissions and Councils of Trade and Plan- 

tations. 1622-1675. By C. M. Andrews. 75 cents. 
4-5. Neutral Rights and Obligations in the Anglo-Boer War. By R. G. 

Campbell. 75 cents. 
6-7. The Elizabethan Parish in its Ecclesiastical and Financial Aspects. 

By S. L. Ware. 50 cents. 
9-10. A Study of the Topography and Municipal History of Praeneste. 

By R. V. D. Magoffin. 50 cents. 

II- 12. Beneficiary Features of American Trade Unions. By J. B. Ken- 

nedy. 50 cents. 

Contents of Series XXVII (1909): 
1-2. The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland, 1864-1867. By W. S. Myers. 
50 cents. 

3-4-5. The Development of the English Law of Conspiracy. By J. W. 

Bryan. 75 cents. 

6-7. Legislative and Judicial History of the Fifteenth Amendment. By 

J. M. Mathews. 75 cents. 
8-12. England and the French Revolution, 1789-1797. By W. T. Laprade. 

$1.00. 

For the year 1910 the following are announced: 
Reconstruction in Louisiana. By J. R. Ficklen. 
The Trade Union Label. By E. R. Spedden. 

The Standard Rate in American Trade Unions. By D. A. McCabe. 

The set of twenty-seven regular series, uniformly bound in cloth, is 
offered for $88.00 net. 

There have also been issued twenty-six volumes of the Extra Series. 
A list of these as well as the contents of the regular series, will be sent on 
request 

The Johns Hopkins Press 

baltimore, md. 



The University includes the following : 

Columbia College, founded in 1754, and Barnard College, founded in 
1889, offering to men and women, respectively, programmes of study 
which may be begun either in September or February and which lead 
normally in from three to four years to the degrees of Bachelor of 
Arts and Bachelor of Science. The programme of study in Columbia 
College makes it possible for a well qualified student to satisfy the re- 
quirements for both the bachelor's degree in arts or science and a pro- 
fessional degree in law, medicine, technology or education in six, five 
and a half or five years as the case may be. 

The Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science, 
offering advanced programmes of study and investigation leading to the 
degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy. 

The professional schools of 
Law, established in 1858, offering courses of three years leading to the 

degree of Bachelor of Laws. 
Medicine. The College of Physicians and Surgeons, established in 
1807, offering four-year courses leading to the degree of Doctor 
of Medicine. 

Mines* founded in 1863, offering courses of four years leading to de- 
grees in Mining Engineering and in Metallurgy. 

Chemistry and Engineering, set apart from School of Mines in 1896, 
offering four-year courses leading to degrees in Chemistry and 
in Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and Chemical Engineering. 

Teachers College, founded in 1888, offering programmes of study each 
of two years leading to professional diplomas and degrees in ele- 
mentary or secondary teaching or some branch thereof, and 
advanced programmes leading to the Master's and Doctor's 
diplomas in Education. 

Fine Arts, offering a programme of indeterminate length leading to a 
certificate or a degree in Architecture, and a programme in 
Music, for which suitable academic recognition will be given. 

Pharmacy. The New York College of Pharmacy, founded in 1831, 
offering courses of two and three years leading to appropriate 
certificates and degrees. 
In the Summer Session the University offers courses giving both 

general and professional training which may be taken either with or 

without regard to an academic degree or diploma. 

Through its system of Extension Teaching the University offers 

many courses of study to persons unable otherwise to receive academic 

training. 

In September, 1905, two Residence Halls were opened with accom- 
modations for five hundred men. There are also residence halls for 
women. 

The price of the University Catalogue is twenty-five cents post- 
paid. Detailed information regarding the work in any department 
will be furnished without charge upon application to the Secretary of 
Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 



1 



Calnnrirra ftnimmty (^uartjerly 



The Quarterly aims to represent faithfully all the varied interests 
of the University. It publishes historical and biographical articles of 
interest to Columbia men, shows the development of the institution in 
every direction, records all official action, describes the work of teachers 
and students in the various departments, reports the more important 
incidents of undergraduate life, notes the successes of alumni in all 
fields of activity, and furnishes an opportunity for the presentation and 
discussion of University problems. 

The Quarterly is issued in December, March, June and September, 
each volume beginning with the December number. Annual subscrip- 
tion, one dollar ; single number, thirty cents. 600 pages per volume. 

All communications should be addressed to the COLUMBIA 
UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY, at Lancaster, Pa., or at Columbia 
University, New York City. 



GENERAL CATALOGUE 

or 

OFFICERS AND ALUMNI 

or 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

(Including Political Science) 

FOURTEENTH EDITION 
1 754-1906 

The volume gives the addresses of all living graduates so far as it has been pos- 
sible to ascertain them. The Locality Index, comprising the names of all living 
graduates with addresses, arranged by States, cities, and towns, which was printed 
for the first time in the 1894 edition, has been revised and continued to date and 
contains 12,983 names. 

Copies bound in cloth and stamped in gilt will be forwarded on receipt of $2.00. 
Add 25 cents for expressage on out-of-town orders. Applications, accompanied by 
draft on New York, postal or express order, or check, may be addressed to Rudolf 
Tombo, Jr., Secretary of the Committee on the General Catalogue, at Columbia 
University. 



Longmans, Green & Co.'s Publications 



Day— A History of Commerce. By Clive Day, Ph.D., Pro- 
fessor of Economic History in Yale University. With 34 Maps. 639 
pages. $2.00. 

This book contains the essentials of commercial progress and development with special 
attention to the relative proportions of subjects. During the nineteenth century, the appor- 
tionment of space to the different countries has been regulated by their respective commer- 
cial importance. 1 he first two chapters cn the United States are designed to serve both as 
a summary of colonial history and as an introduction to the commercial development of the 
national period. Later chapters aim to include the essentials of our commercial progress. 

Follett— The Speaker of the House of Representa- 
tives. By M. P. Follett. With an Introduction by Albert Bush- 
nell Hart, LL.D. Crown, 8vo, with Appendices and Index. $1.75. 

Contents; I. Genesis of the Speaker's Power. II. Choice of the Speaker. III. The Per- 
sonal Element of the Speakership. IV. The Speaker's Parliamentary Prerogatives. V. 
The Speaker's Vote. VI. Maintenance of Order. VII. Dealing with Obstruction. VIII. 
Power through the Committee System. IX. Power through Recognition. X. Power as a 
Political Leader. XI. The Speaker's Place in Our Political System. Appendices. Index. 

" In few recent works belonging to the field of politics and history do we find so much evi- 
dence of the conditions which are essential to the making of a good book — a well-chosen 
theme, grasp of subject, mastery of material, patient, long-continued, wisely directed labor, 
good sense and good taste . . . the wonder is that in a region so new the author should have 
succeeded in exploring ?o far and so well. The work has placed every student of politics 
and political history under heavy obligations." — Political Science Quarterly. 

Robinson— Cuba and the Intervention. By Albert S. 
Robinson (" A. S. R.' ). Crown 8vo. 359 pages. $r.8o; by mail, £1.92. 

" A book that is destined long to figure among the most valuable materials for a compre- 
hension of Cuba's history at a critical conjuncture. The author was an eye-witness of the 
events that he describes, and he brought to his task a mind qualified by education and exper- 
ience for the work of observation. With the possible exception of an occasional paragraph, 
the volume consists entirely of newly written matter." — The Sun, New York. 

Rowe — United States and Porto Rico, With Special Refer- 
ence to the Problems arising out of our contact with the Spanish American 
Civilization. By Leo S. Rowe, Ph D., Professor of Political Science in 
the University of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Porto Rican Commission 
(1901-1902,) etc. Crown 8vo. 280 pages. $1.30 net; by mail, $1.40. 

Willoughby— Political Theories of the Ancient World. 

By Westel W. Willoughby, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Political 
Science in the Johns Hopkins University. Author of " The Nature of 
the State," " Social Justice," " The Rights and Duties of American Citi- 
zenship," etc. Crown 8vo. 308 pages. $2.00. 



LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., Publishers, 

Fourth Avenue and 30th Street, New York. 



Longmans, Green & Co.'s New Books 



Principles of Political Economy : With, some of their 
Applications to Social Philosophy. By John Stuart 
Mill. Edited with an Introduction by W. J. Ashley, M.A., M.Com., 
Professor of Commerce in the University of Birmingham, sometimes Fellow 
of Lincoln College, Oxford. Crown 8vo, pp. liv-j-1014. $1.50 net. 

It is seldom realized how considerable were the changes and additions made by Mill him- 
self in the six editions of his Treatise which appeared in his life-time after the firs; in 1848. 
It is a main purpose of Professor Ashley's edition to indicate, with their dates, all those 
changes in the text which show any variation or development in Mill's opinions. 

Human Economics. Books I. and II. : Natural Econ- 
omy, and Cosmopolitan Economy. By A. H. Gibson, 
F.C.A. 8vo, viii-l-406. #3.50 «,?/. 

The ptofessional experience of the author has brought him into close connection with the 
actualities of human economics. In this work he investigates the laws, both natural and 
human, controlling production and consumption, and, to that end, lays down new divisions 
of the Science of Economics, viz. : (1) Natural Economy, (2) Cosmopolitan Economy, (3) 
Communital Economy, (4) Individual Economy. 

The Industrial System : An Enquiry into Earned and 
Unearned Income. By J. A. Hobson, Author of " The Evolu- 
tion of Modern Capitalism," etc. 8vo, pp. xx-f-328. $2.50 net. 

The Strength of England: A Politico-Economic His- 
tory of England from Saxon Times to the Reign 
of Charles the First. By J. W. Welsford, M.A., formerly 
Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge; Author of "The 
Strength of Nations," &c. With a Preface by W. Cunningham, D.D., 
F.B.A. Archdeacon of Ely. Crown 8vo, pp. xvi — 362. #1.75 net. 

Modern Constitutions in Outline: An Introductory 
Study in Political Science. By Leonard Alston, M.A., 
Director of Non-Collegiate Students in Economics and History, Cambridge. 
Neio Edition, Revised. Crown, 8vo, pp. viii-f-79. $0.90. 

The Individual and Reality : An Essay Touching the 

First Principles of Metaphysics. By Edward Douglas 

Fawcett. Medium, 8vo, pp. xxiv-}-45o. #4.25 net. 

This book, which may be regarded as a reply to the Absolutist idealism of Mr. F. H. 
Bradley's " Appearance and Reality," seeks to show that a satisfactory metaphysic flows 
naturally from "radical empiricism." 



LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., Publishers, 

Fourth Avenue and 30th Street, New York. 



BOOKS ON POLITICAL 
SCIENCE 



List 
Price 

Ripley : Railway Problems 2.25 

Ripley: Trusts, Pools, and Corporations 1.80 

Callendar : Selections from the Economic History of the 

United States, 1765-1860 2.75 

Commons : Trade Unionism and Labor Problems. Reprints 

of Articles by Scientific and Practical Investigators 2.00 

Carver : Sociology and Social Progress. A Handbook for Stu- 
dents of Sociology 2.75 

Bullock : Selected Readings in Economics . , 2.25 

Bullock : Selected Readings in Public Finance. Relating to 

such topics as public expenditures, revenues from industries, etc. 2.25 
White : Money and Banking. Illustrated by American History. 

Third edition. Revised and continued to the year 1910. . . . 1.50 

Bryan : The Mark in Europe and America. A Review of 

the Discussion on Early Land Tenure 1.00 

Burgess: Political Science and Comparative Constitu- 
tional Law. Two volumes. Retail price, 5.00 

Clark: The Philosophy of Wealth. Economic Principles 

Newly Formulated 1. 00 

Dunbar : Currency, Finance and Banking. Retail price, . 2.50 

Gregg : Handbook of Parliamentary Law 50 

Thompson: Political Economy 50 

Johnson : Money and Currency 1.75 

Reinsch : Readings on American Federal Government . 2.75 

Sumner: Folkways 3.00 

Ward : Applied Sociology 2.50 



GINN AND COMPANY Publishers 

BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO LONDON 

ATLANTA DALLAS COLUMBUS SAN FRANCISCO 



Studies in History, Economics and Public Law 

Edited by the 

Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University 



VOLUME I, 1891-2. 2nd. Ed., 1897. 396 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. Tlie Divorce Problem. A Study in Statistics. 

By Walter A. Willcox, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

2. The History of Tariff Administration in the United States, from 

Colonial Times to the McKinley Administrative Bill. 

By John Dean Goss, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

3. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan Island. 

By George Ashton Black, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

4. Financial History of Massachusetts. 

By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph.D. (Not sold separately.) 

VOLUME n, 1892-93. 503 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. The Economics of the Russian Village. 

By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph.D. (Out of print.) 

2. Bankruptcy. A Study in Comparative Legislation. 

By Samuel W. Dunscomb, Jr., Ph.D. Price, £1.00. 

3. Special Assessments: A Study in Municipal Finance. 

By Victor Rosewatbr, Ph.D. Second Edition, 1898. Price, $1.00, 

VOLUME III, 1893. 465 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. *History of Elections in the American Colonies. 

By Cortland F. Bishop, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

2. The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies. 

By George L. Beer, A.M. (Not sold separately.) 

VOLUME IV, 1393-94. 438 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. Financial History of Virginia. By William Z. Ripley, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

2. *The Inheritance Tax. By Max West, Ph.D. Second Edition, 1908. Price, $2.00. 

3. History of Taxation in Vermont. 

By Frederick A. Wood, Ph.D. (Not sold separately.) 

VOLUME V, 1895-96. 498 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. Double Taxation in the United States. 

By Francis Walker, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

2. The Separation of Governmental Powers. 

By William Bondy, LL.B., Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

3. Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio. 

By Delos F. Wilcox, Ph.D. Price, $i.oa 

VOLUME VI, 1896. 601 pp. Price, $4.00. 

History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania. 

By William Robert Shepherd, Ph.D. Price $4.00; bound, $4.SX 

VOLUME VII, 1896. 512 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth 

Government in Massachusetts. 

By Harry A. Cushing, Ph.D. Price, $2.00, 
8.*Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United 

States. By Henry Crosby Emery, Ph.D. Price, $1.50, 



VOLUME VIII, 1896-98. 551pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over Re- 

construction. By Charles Ernest Chadsey, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

2. Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Educational Administra- 

tion. By William Clarence Webster, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

8. The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris. 

By Francis R. Stark, LL.B., Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

4. Public Administration in Massachusetts. The Relation of Central 
to Local Activity. By Robert Harvey Whitten, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME IX, 1897-98. 617 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. *English Local Government of To-day. A Study of the Relations 

of Central and Local Government. 

By Milo Rot Maltbie, Ph.D. Price, $2.00 

2. German Wage Theories. A History of their Development. 

By James W. Crook, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

3. The Centralization of Administration in New York State. 

By John Archibald Fairlie, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME X, 1898-99. 500 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. Sympathetic Strikes and Sympathetic Lockouts. 

By Fred S. Hall, Ph.D. Price, $x.ao. 

2. *Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union. 

By Frank Greene Bates, Ph.D, Price, <x 50. 

8. Centralized Administration of Liquor Laws in the American Com- 
monwealths. By Clement Moore Lacbt Sites, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME XI, 1899. 495 pp. Price, $3.50. 

The Growth of Cities. By Adna Ferrin Weber, Ph.D. 

VOLUME Xn, 1899-1900. 586 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. History and Functions of Central Labor Unions. 

By William Maxwell Burke, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

2. Colonial Immigration Laws. 

By Edward Embbrson Propbr, A.M. Price, 75 cents. 

8. History of Military Pension Legislation in the United States. 

By William Henry Glasson, Ph.D Price, $1.00. 

4. History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. 

By Charles E. Mbrriam, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

VOLUME Xm, 1901. 570 pp. Price. $3.50. 

1. The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties. 

By Isidor Lobb, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

2. Political Nativism in New York State. 

By Louis Dow Scisco, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 

8. The Reconstruction of Georgia. 

By Edwin C. Woollby, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME XIV, 1901-1902. 576 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. Loyalism in New York during the American Revolution. 

By Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph.D. Price, fa.co. 

2. The Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. 

By Allan H. Willett, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 
8. The Eastern Question : A Study in Diplomacy. 

By Stephen P. H. Duggan, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

3 VOLUME XV, 1902. 427 pp. Price, $3.00. 

c 

Crime in Its Relations to Social Progress. 

By Arthur Cleveland Hall, Ph.D. 



VOLUME XXII, 1905. 520 pp. Price, $3.00. 

The Historical Development of the Poor Law of Connecticut. 

By Edward W. Capkn, Ph.D. 

VOLUME XXm, 1905. 594 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. The Economics of Land Tenure in Georgia. 

By Enoch Marvin Banks, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

2. Mistake in Contract. A Study in Comparative Jurisprudence. 

By Edwin C. McKeag, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

8. Combination in the Mining Industry. By Henry R. Mussey, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 
4. The English Craft Guilds and the Government. 

By Stella Kramer, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME XXIV, 1905. 521 pp. Price, $3.00. 

1. The Place of Magic in the Intellectual History of Europe. 

By Lynn Thorndike, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 
8. The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code. 

By William K. Boyd, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 
8. *The International Position of Japan as a Great Power. 

By Seiji G. Hishida, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 

VOLUME XXV, 1906-07. 600 pp. Price, $4.00. 

1. • Municipal Control of Public Utilities. By Oscar Lewis Pond, Ph.D. Price, $i.o«. 

2. The Budget in the American Commonwealths. 

By Eugene E. Agger, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

3. The Finances of Cleveland. By Charles C. Williamson, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 

VOLUME XXVI, 1907. 559 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. Trade and Currency in Early Oregon. By James H. Gilbert, Ph.D. Price, £i.oo. 
8. LiUther's Table Talk. By Preserved Smith, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

8. The Tobacco Industry In the United States. 

By Meyer Jacobstein, Ph.D. Price, gi.50. 

4. Social Democracy and Population. By Alvan a. Tenney, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

VOLUME XXVII, 1907. 578 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole. By Norris A. Brisco, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

2. The United States Steel Corporation. By AbrahamBerglund, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

3. The Taxation of Corporations in Massachusetts. 

By Harry G. Friedman, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

VOLUME XXVIII, 1907. 584 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. DeWitt Clinton and the Origin of the Spoils System in New York. 

By Howard Lee McBain, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

2. The Development of the Legislature of Colonial Virginia. 

By Elmer I. Miller, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 
8. The Distribution of Ownership. By Joseph Harding Underwood, Ph.D. Price, gi.50. 

VOLUME XXIX, 1908. 703 pp. Price, $4 00. 

1. Early New England Towns. By Anne Bush MacLear, Ph.D. Price, £1.50. 

2. New Hampshire as a Royal Province. By William H. Fry, Ph.D. Price, $3.00. 

VOLUME XXX, 1908. 712 pp. Price, $4.00. 

The Province of New Jersey, 1664—1738. By Edwin P. Tanner, Ph.D. 

VOLUME XXXI, 1908. 575 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. Private Freight Cars and American Railroads. 

By L. D. H. Weld, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

2. Ohio before 1850. By Robert £. Chaddock, Ph.D. Price, gi. 50. 
8. Consanguineous Marriages in the American Population. 

By George B. Louis Arner, Ph.D. Price, 75c. 

4. Adolphe Quetelet as Statistician. By Frank H. Hankins, Ph.D. Price, $1.25. 

VOLUME XXXH, 1908. 705 pp. Price, $4.00. 

The Enforcement of the Statutes of Laborers. By Bertha Haven Putnam, Ph.D. 

VOLUME XXXIII, 1908-1909. 635 pp. Price, $4.00. 

1. Factory Legislation in Maine. By E. Stagg Whitin, A B. Price, $i.oo. 

2. *Psychological Interpretations of Society. 

By Michael M. Davis, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 
8. *An Introduction to the Sources relating to the Germanic Invasions. 

By Carlton Huntley Haves. Ph.D. Pr.ce, $1.50. 



19 



VOLUME XXXIV, 1909. 628 pp. Price, $4.00. 

1. [89] Transportation and Industrial Development in the Middle West. 

By William F. Ghphart, Ph.D. Price, £2.00* 

2. [90] Social Reform and the Reformation. 

By Jacob Salwyn Schapiro, Ph.D. Price, |i.a$» 

8. [91] Responsibility for Crime. By Philip A. Parsons, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

VOLUME XXXV, 1909. 568 pp. Price, $4.00. 

1. [98] The Conflict over the Judicial Powers in the United States to 1870. 

By Charles Grove Haines, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

8. [93] A Study of the Population of Manhattanville. 

By Howard Brown Woolston, Ph.D. Price, $1.25. 

8. [94] * Divorce: A Study in Social Causation. 

By Jambs P. Lichtbnbrrgbr, Ph.D. Price, $1.50, 

VOLUME XXXVI, 1910. 

1. [95] * Reconstruction in Texas. By Charles William Ramsdbll, Ph.D. Price, $2.50. 

3. [96] The Transition in Virginia from Colony to Commonwealth. 

By Charles Ramsdbll Linglby. (/* Press.) 

VOLUME XXXVII, 1910. 

1. [97] Standards of Reasonableness In Local Freight Discriminations. 

By John Maurice Clark. (In Press.) 

2. [98] Legal Development in Colonial Massachusetts. 

By C. J. Hilkey. (In Press.) 

8. [99] * Social and Mental Traits of the Negro. By Howard W. Odum. (In Press.) 

VOLUME XXXVIII, 1910. 

1. [100] Western Development and Democracy. 

By Robert Tudor Hill. (/* Press.) 



flit price for each volume Is for the set of monographs in paper. Each volume, as well as the sepa- 
rate monographs marked*, can be supplied in cloth-bound copies, for 50c. additional. All prices 
are net. 



The set of thirty-five volumes, comprising ninety -four monographs, (except that Vol. II can be supplied 
only in unbound nos. 2 and 3) is offered bound for $118. Volumes I, III and IV can now be supplied 
only in connection with complete sets. 



For further information, apply to 

Prof. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Columbia University, 

or to Messrs. LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., New York. 
London: P. S. KING & SON, Orchard House, Westminster. 

/ 



Lb S 10 



